Trickle-Down Self-Censorship
by David J. Rusin • May 6, 2010 at 11:30 am
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2010/05/trickle-down-self-censorship
Remember that old public service ad with a father confronting his son about drug use? Asked where he learned to do such things, the son replies, "You, all right? I learned it by watching you!" A similar process applies to self-censorship. When those in positions of power and authority succumb to the temptation of muzzling their own speech out of fear, is it any surprise that the less powerful often follow suit?
Consider the case of Molly Norris. After threats prompted Comedy Central to censor Muhammad in the April 21 episode of South Park, the Seattle-based artist took a stand for free speech. Norris created a poster announcing "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," sponsored by the made-up Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor. Imploring people to sketch the prophet on May 20, the image features good-natured doodles of a teacup, a domino, and other items claiming to be his likeness. "As a cartoonist I just felt so much passion about what had happened [that] I wanted to kind of counter Comedy Central's message they sent about feeling afraid," Norris explained in an interview.
Yet as her idea raced around the internet, taking on a life of its own, she had second thoughts. Norris composed a note distancing herself from the event, declaring that she "never wanted or committed to leading a 'movement,'" and arguing that enough cartoons of Muhammad have been drawn to "get the … point across by now." She even defaced her original poster with comments such as "Lighten up! This is a fictional cartoon!" while assuring us that the teacup, the domino, and their friends are not actual representations of Muhammad. Elsewhere she admitted, "I am personally afraid of Muslims because the peaceful folks of that religion do not often come forward to differentiate themselves from any radical elements!" Well, that much is true.
So how should lovers of liberty react to Norris? With disappointment, perhaps, but not with anger. After all, when a prominent network like Comedy Central — which could afford to pay for whatever security it and the South Park creators need — caves to a small cadre of goons, what message does it send to someone whose only protection might be a deadbolt? The answer: that self-censorship is an acceptable response to Islamist intimidation.
The lesson gets reinforced over and over: Citing safety concerns, Yale University Press balked at including the Danish Muhammad cartoons in a 2009 book about — yes — the Danish Muhammad cartoons. Then images of the prophet were pulled from New York City's Met. In February, the Danish newspaper Politiken apologized for offending Muslims by reprinting Kurt Westergaard's bomb-in-the-turban caricature. Westergaard himself is deemed too dangerous to associate with, having had a charity illustration refused and a talk show appearance canceled. Lars Vilks, known for living in a booby-trapped house after drawing Muhammad as a dog, is becoming persona non grata as well. In short, Norris and others "learned it by watching you!"
Media outlets that self-censor produce citizens that self-censor. Because free speech is absolutely vital to beating back the storm surge of Islamism, readers are encouraged to contact Viacom, the owner of Comedy Central, and educate it about civic responsibilities in the age of jihad.
///////////////////////////////////////////////
The European June: Riots, Stonings, and Brawls
by David J. Rusin • Jun 30, 2010 at 3:02 pm
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2010/06/the-european-june-riots-stonings-and-brawls
Islamists' long march through the West involves three interlocking campaigns, each of which can be advanced violently or nonviolently: provoking conflicts with authorities (governments, courts, police, etc.), intimidating the non-Muslim public, and bullying insufficiently radical Muslims. All three facets were on display in Europe over the past month, as tensions enabled by shortsighted policies erupted into physical altercations: *
Islamists versus the authorities. Rinkeby, a Muslim-heavy suburb of Stockholm, Sweden, is fast becoming Europe's latest "no-go zone" after riots rocked the area, which is dubbed "Little Mogadishu" and serves as a recruiting spot for al-Shabaab terrorists. When a group of "youths" was denied entry to a party on June 7 and police tried to disperse the crowd, junior jihadists used the opportunity to rampage against the state:
They then began to pull up street cobblestones and slabs of pavement and throw them at police. Then they started setting light to parked cars, and even a local bank ended up being set on fire. Firemen who came to put out the fires were then also set upon by the gang of up to 60 youths, according to news agency TT. *
Disturbances started again Tuesday as night fell, and arsonists torched motorbikes and cars, as well as trying to light the local police station. They then moved on to a high school in the area, razing it to the ground. Firefighters were unable to get close enough to the school to fight the fire due to the stone-throwing youths.
"We are soldiers," one ruffian explained, "and the police are our enemy." *
Islamists versus non-Muslims. Two ugly cases of Islamist intimidation befell Jews in Germany. On the 19th, Arab "youths" attacked a Jewish dance troupe on stage at a street festival in Hannover, tossing stones at the performers and shouting "Jews out!" Days later, a Palestinian assaulted a pair of young Israeli men at a Berlin club; in a microcosm of Europe's approach to the Mideast dispute, the bouncer used pepper spray against the Israelis rather than the Palestinian perpetrator, who managed to flee. *
Islamists versus other Muslims. A June 6 brawl at an amusement park in Helsinki, Finland, was instigated by Somali Islamists seeking to impose Shari'a upon more secularized Kurds. YLE reports: "One of Sunday's fights started with an argument over the use of headscarves. According to the 25-year-old woman, the Somalis denounced Kurdish women for not wearing scarves." Another Kurd offered a previous example of these overlooked intrafaith tensions: "When I was [in] a Finnish language course … one Somali prevented us from listening to music, saying that it is banned under Islamic law."
While there can be no excuses for this behavior, Western governments do help lay the foundation by permitting Muslim enclaves, condemning Israeli self-defense, and promoting identity politics. No doubt Europe's summer of discontent will only grow hotter from here.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
WWIII?
No One Likes To
Talk About This ...
by Larry Edelson
Dear Subscriber,
You know where I stand on just about all the markets. And not much has changed in them, or my views, since I spoke with you in my column last week, or even via my video update last Thursday.
So today I want to change things up a bit, and address a very important topic. One that scares the heck out of me, quite frankly ... and one that I know many people are thinking about.
Sadly though, there are very few even willing to discuss this topic. So that makes it even more imperative that I get the word out.
The topic, or perhaps I should say question, is the following:
Throughout history, major wars have often been triggered by financial crises. So the question is: Will today's great financial crisis — the worst since the 1930s Depression — lead to World War III? And if so, when?
This is a very important topic for all of us, for a variety of reasons. And naturally, there's no way I can do it justice in a singe column. Or even in a 400-page book.
But the least I can do is share my research on the subject with you, and more importantly, give you an idea as to whether or not the current financial crisis could lead to a major war, and if so, when.
To do so, I will borrow upon my original research on the topic of war, published, copyrighted and filed with the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. in May 1988.
It was a special report I put together in the mid-1980s — for the benefit of my advisory firm's clients and investors in two privately managed commodity funds where I was the senior trader.
That report, and the research it contained, forecast political and cultural instability beginning in May 1989 and increasing into June 1990; in August of that year, Iraq invaded Kuwait, touching off Gulf War I. The data also helped me issue major forecasts for how the Dow Industrials would respond to the crisis. It turned out to be right on the money.
I have recently updated that report and it's titled, like the first one, “The Cycles of War.” I've also copyrighted it and filed it with the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.
No doubt, the subject of war evokes a very basic and fundamental emotion. After all, “war”, or social conflict, is in a very real sense, the result of basic human emotions, just as love, hate, fear and greed are.
And, sad but true, the history of war is very much a part of the history of mankind. It is a cycle of life and death, of prosperity and depression, panic and serenity — and of the rise and fall of great powers and civilizations.
Unfortunately, based on my research ...
The cycles of war — the natural rhythms that predispose societies to descend into chaos, into hatred, into civil and even international war — are building momentum again, and threaten to bear down on the world in short order.
When? Well, we're already seeing the beginnings of the cycles, in the riots in Greece, Thailand, and elsewhere. I'll give you more on the timing in a minute.
But first, please note: My message today only pertains to whether or not we face a high probability of a major war in the future, and when. In this short column, I simply cannot cover who will be at war, what the precise triggers and reasons will be, or how the markets will respond. I will cover that at a subsequent date in my Real Wealth Report.
Second, I have attempted below to make this as easy to understand as possible. Cycles are a complex subject, even more so when you are studying the cycles of war.
Some Background on
My Research into the Cycles of War
I'm not the first to conduct research into the rhythms or cycles of war. There have been many before me, notably, Raymond Wheeler, who has published the most authoritative chronicle of war ever, covering a period of 2,600 years of data.
And Mr. Edward R. Dewey, the noted cycle theorist and founder of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles.
In 1964, after having worked extensively with Wheeler's data, Mr. Dewey discovered a 17.71 year cycle in war. In other words, throughout 2,600 years of data, there seemed to be a natural tendency and high probability for societies to engage in conflict, every 17.71 years, on average.
Dewey's work was way ahead of its time. But as I examined the data and cycles as they panned out in the 19th and 20th centuries, they often missed the mark by being too early or too late, and at other times, seemed to have no impact at all.
Talk About This ...
by Larry Edelson
Dear Subscriber,
You know where I stand on just about all the markets. And not much has changed in them, or my views, since I spoke with you in my column last week, or even via my video update last Thursday.
So today I want to change things up a bit, and address a very important topic. One that scares the heck out of me, quite frankly ... and one that I know many people are thinking about.
Sadly though, there are very few even willing to discuss this topic. So that makes it even more imperative that I get the word out.
The topic, or perhaps I should say question, is the following:
Throughout history, major wars have often been triggered by financial crises. So the question is: Will today's great financial crisis — the worst since the 1930s Depression — lead to World War III? And if so, when?
This is a very important topic for all of us, for a variety of reasons. And naturally, there's no way I can do it justice in a singe column. Or even in a 400-page book.
But the least I can do is share my research on the subject with you, and more importantly, give you an idea as to whether or not the current financial crisis could lead to a major war, and if so, when.
To do so, I will borrow upon my original research on the topic of war, published, copyrighted and filed with the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. in May 1988.
It was a special report I put together in the mid-1980s — for the benefit of my advisory firm's clients and investors in two privately managed commodity funds where I was the senior trader.
That report, and the research it contained, forecast political and cultural instability beginning in May 1989 and increasing into June 1990; in August of that year, Iraq invaded Kuwait, touching off Gulf War I. The data also helped me issue major forecasts for how the Dow Industrials would respond to the crisis. It turned out to be right on the money.
I have recently updated that report and it's titled, like the first one, “The Cycles of War.” I've also copyrighted it and filed it with the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.
No doubt, the subject of war evokes a very basic and fundamental emotion. After all, “war”, or social conflict, is in a very real sense, the result of basic human emotions, just as love, hate, fear and greed are.
And, sad but true, the history of war is very much a part of the history of mankind. It is a cycle of life and death, of prosperity and depression, panic and serenity — and of the rise and fall of great powers and civilizations.
Unfortunately, based on my research ...
The cycles of war — the natural rhythms that predispose societies to descend into chaos, into hatred, into civil and even international war — are building momentum again, and threaten to bear down on the world in short order.
When? Well, we're already seeing the beginnings of the cycles, in the riots in Greece, Thailand, and elsewhere. I'll give you more on the timing in a minute.
But first, please note: My message today only pertains to whether or not we face a high probability of a major war in the future, and when. In this short column, I simply cannot cover who will be at war, what the precise triggers and reasons will be, or how the markets will respond. I will cover that at a subsequent date in my Real Wealth Report.
Second, I have attempted below to make this as easy to understand as possible. Cycles are a complex subject, even more so when you are studying the cycles of war.
Some Background on
My Research into the Cycles of War
I'm not the first to conduct research into the rhythms or cycles of war. There have been many before me, notably, Raymond Wheeler, who has published the most authoritative chronicle of war ever, covering a period of 2,600 years of data.
And Mr. Edward R. Dewey, the noted cycle theorist and founder of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles.
In 1964, after having worked extensively with Wheeler's data, Mr. Dewey discovered a 17.71 year cycle in war. In other words, throughout 2,600 years of data, there seemed to be a natural tendency and high probability for societies to engage in conflict, every 17.71 years, on average.
Dewey's work was way ahead of its time. But as I examined the data and cycles as they panned out in the 19th and 20th centuries, they often missed the mark by being too early or too late, and at other times, seemed to have no impact at all.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE THIS?
Al-Qaida warns of new attacks deadlier than before
By PAUL SCHEMM, Associated Press Writer Paul Schemm, Associated Press Writer Sun Jun 20, 12:57 pm ET
CAIRO – Al-Qaida's U.S.-born spokesman warned President Barack Obama Sunday that the militant group may launch new attacks that would kill more Americans than previous ones.
In a taunting, 24 minute message that dwelled on Obama's setbacks, including the loss of Massachusetts Senate seat to the Republicans, Adam Gadahn set out al-Qaida's conditions for peace with the U.S., including cutting support for Israel and withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
Gadahn said that if you compared the number of dead Muslims "with the relatively small number of Americans we have killed so far, it becomes crystal-clear that we haven't even begun to even the score," he said, dressed in a white robe and turban. "That's why next time, we might not show the restraint and self-control we have shown up until now," he said. Even if al-Qaida was defeated, "hundreds of millions of Muslims" would still fight the U.S., he added.
Al-Qaida offered the same conditions for an end to hostilities to then President George W. Bush in 2007, including the release of all Muslim prisoners and cutting off aid to Middle East governments.
Gadahn's statement was notable for its mocking tone, in which he described Obama as "a devious, evasive and serpentine American president with a Muslim name," and seemed to delight in his setbacks.
"You're no longer the popular man you once were, a year ago or so," he crowed, ascribing his drop in popularity to the escalation of the U.S. wars abroad.
At the time of Obama's election, many analysts said al-Qaida was worried that his race and Muslim family connections would make him more appealing to Muslims and Arabs angry at Bush's foreign policy.
In its statements since his election, al-Qaida has taken pains to show the continuity between Obama's foreign policy and that of his predecessor.
Gadahn is wanted by the FBI since 2004 with a $1 million reward for information leading to his arrest or conviction. He is also known as Azzam al-Amriki, Arabic for the American.
By PAUL SCHEMM, Associated Press Writer Paul Schemm, Associated Press Writer Sun Jun 20, 12:57 pm ET
CAIRO – Al-Qaida's U.S.-born spokesman warned President Barack Obama Sunday that the militant group may launch new attacks that would kill more Americans than previous ones.
In a taunting, 24 minute message that dwelled on Obama's setbacks, including the loss of Massachusetts Senate seat to the Republicans, Adam Gadahn set out al-Qaida's conditions for peace with the U.S., including cutting support for Israel and withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
Gadahn said that if you compared the number of dead Muslims "with the relatively small number of Americans we have killed so far, it becomes crystal-clear that we haven't even begun to even the score," he said, dressed in a white robe and turban. "That's why next time, we might not show the restraint and self-control we have shown up until now," he said. Even if al-Qaida was defeated, "hundreds of millions of Muslims" would still fight the U.S., he added.
Al-Qaida offered the same conditions for an end to hostilities to then President George W. Bush in 2007, including the release of all Muslim prisoners and cutting off aid to Middle East governments.
Gadahn's statement was notable for its mocking tone, in which he described Obama as "a devious, evasive and serpentine American president with a Muslim name," and seemed to delight in his setbacks.
"You're no longer the popular man you once were, a year ago or so," he crowed, ascribing his drop in popularity to the escalation of the U.S. wars abroad.
At the time of Obama's election, many analysts said al-Qaida was worried that his race and Muslim family connections would make him more appealing to Muslims and Arabs angry at Bush's foreign policy.
In its statements since his election, al-Qaida has taken pains to show the continuity between Obama's foreign policy and that of his predecessor.
Gadahn is wanted by the FBI since 2004 with a $1 million reward for information leading to his arrest or conviction. He is also known as Azzam al-Amriki, Arabic for the American.
IRAN IN THE CATBIRD SEAT
By Brigitte Gabriel
June 18, 2010
The Washington Times | While world media and political attention is focused on the Israel-"Freedom Flotilla" incident, Iranian mullahs in Tehran are celebrating their brilliant war strategy in advancing their nuclear program. As world-renowned masters of the game of chess, Iranian mullahs can add "strategic marketing, public relations and media planning" to their resume.
Iran, anticipating a damning report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revealing Iran has more than 2 tons of enriched uranium (two warheads' worth), had been actively working with Israel's enemies to divert world attention away from the alarming findings. The IAEA report, released on May 31, the day of the raid, was virtually unreported by the media, as all eyes had turned to Israel and Gaza.
Iran is manipulating operations in the Middle East and building alliances with like-minded jihadists driven by the same goal. Iran's strategic operations surrounding Israel include setting up bases of operation and creating controlled and planned conflicts as part of a bigger strategy not only to suffocate Israel but also to distract the world community from its own nuclear development plans.
Iran began building its base in Lebanon in 1982 with the creation of Hezbollah. By combining nearly 10 Islamic terror groups that shared the same ideology as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran created a proxy Iranian army on Israel's northern border. After the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, Iran seized the opportunity to extend a helping hand to Hamas, a Sunni group that shares the Iranian Shi'ite leadership's aspiration to wipe Israel off the map.
As evidenced by weapons and material recovered from the ship MV Francop in November 2009, Iran is not a stranger to using the high seas as a way to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas.
Iran has been working with North Korea, Syria, China and Russia and is actively courting Turkey to create a counterbalance to American power in the Middle East. A Russian submarine flying an Iranian flag docked in Beirut last month, where what is believed to be chemical weapons were unloaded by people wearing "hazmat" or chemical warfare suits. Syria, working with Iran, has supplied Hezbollah with Scud missiles able to reach all of Israel. Iran's plans for Israel are as clear as the writing on the wall.
This summer could easily reprise the war of 2006, when Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon opened a two-front confrontation against Israel, sparked by Hamas' and Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. The conflict dragged Israel into an all-out war with Lebanon, and Iran and Syria were content to pull the puppet strings.
As a result of the flotilla incident, a Syrian television show already has called for suicide bombers to attack Israel; the head of the Palestinian Islamic council on Lebanon is calling for the kidnapping of Israelis; the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is calling for withdrawal from the Arab Peace Initiative; and the Muslim Union of Islamic scholars is calling for the cancellation of all peace agreements with Israel.
And who is talking about the IAEA report of Iran having two nuclear warheads' worth of enriched uranium? Virtually nobody.
Score: Iran: 1, Israel/America/IAEA, 0.
You can hear the laughter all the way from Tehran.
The flotilla incident is nothing more than a spark in a larger web of explosives set and organized by Iran and is the first step toward accomplishing Iran's ultimate goals. First, create whatever distraction is necessary, preferably one that inflames world hatred of Israel, to buy time to finish the bomb. Second, attain the bomb and become the Islamic superpower of the world, with the ability to wipe Israel off the map. This will usher in a new era of hegemony in the Middle East.
The stakes are high, and time is running out. Western governments must stand together against Iran and the new axis of tyrannical power that is developing. While it is Israel that will soon face a nuclear-armed Iran, in the long term, it will be Europe and America facing an Iran capable of projecting its totalitarian ideology across the globe.
Brigitte Gabriel is author of "Because They Hate" and "They Must Be Stopped" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and 2008). She is the president of ActforAmerica.org.
GREAT,GREAT,BIDEN INTERVIEW
I know you're inundated with e-mails, but this interview video with Joe Biden is worth watching.
PASS THIS ON.....TERRIFIC
VP Joe Biden explained what really happened in the flotilla incident
Dear Friends,
Amazingly, during a PBS interview aired on Wednesday, June 2, 2010, American VP Joe Biden explained what really happened towards and during the flotilla incident, in a much clearer manner than all Israel's Ministry of Information officials combined:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGvx7FarInQ
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS -WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT?
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/id.5374/blog_detail.asp
UNLESS YOU DON”T MIND IT IS YOUR TAX $$$
Missouri is part of the USA
Hi all,
We should all take a page from Missouri's book...
Subject: Illegal Immigration in Missouri
The "Show Me" state has once again showed us how it should be done. They need more publication and exposure on this. Let's pass it around.
In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the Official language of Missouri. Nearly 90% voting in favor! English became the official language for ALL governmental proceeding in Missouri. It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language OTHER than English.
In 2008 a measure was passed that requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It allows Missouri law enforcement offices to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. The bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants will NOT have access to taxpayers benefits such as food stamps and health care through Missouri HealthNET.
In 2009 a measure was passed that ensures Missouri's public institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all post-secondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States.
So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem.
Missouri has sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in our state and they are certainly NOT welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of Missouri taxpayers!
Article in "The Ozarks Sentinel" Editorial Opinion - Nita Jane Ayres, May 13, 2010
We should all take a page from Missouri's book...
Subject: Illegal Immigration in Missouri
The "Show Me" state has once again showed us how it should be done. They need more publication and exposure on this. Let's pass it around.
In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the Official language of Missouri. Nearly 90% voting in favor! English became the official language for ALL governmental proceeding in Missouri. It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language OTHER than English.
In 2008 a measure was passed that requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It allows Missouri law enforcement offices to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. The bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants will NOT have access to taxpayers benefits such as food stamps and health care through Missouri HealthNET.
In 2009 a measure was passed that ensures Missouri's public institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all post-secondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States.
So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem.
Missouri has sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in our state and they are certainly NOT welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of Missouri taxpayers!
Article in "The Ozarks Sentinel" Editorial Opinion - Nita Jane Ayres, May 13, 2010
MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO: : WHO HAS LOST THEIR MINDS?
Monday, May 10, 2010 1:13 PM
From:
"Act for America"
homelearnactdonatelocal chaptersContact Congress
ACT! for America
May 10, 2010
Exclusive: Spitting in the Face of Everyone Murdered on 9/11
Gadi Adelman
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6177/pub_detail.asp
[Editor’s note: highlights added]
Well, it’s official, we have all lost our minds.
I read about this last December, plans for a mosque at Ground Zero, but like a fool, I assumed that New Yorkers would never let this come to pass. A mosque just 600 feet from where the World Trade Center towers once stood. I thought to myself; no way will New York or anyone with a heart or soul, not to mention just plain common sense, ever allow a mosque to be built anywhere near Ground Zero. But, as I said, I am a fool.
The project of a community center /mosque is being proposed by two organizations, the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA) and their sister organization, the Cordoba Initiative. This past Wednesday night they made their presentation to the Community Board of lower Manhattan (CB1). Twelve people sit on the board and would you like to guess what the final vote was? Get ready to grab a barf bag … the 12 members voted unanimously to support the project. Yes, it’s not a typo, it was unanimous, all were in favor and, to give you an idea of how excited the board members were, they applauded during the presentation.
In an article in the New York Daily News on Thursday, retired FDNY Deputy Chief Jim Riches said,
"I realize it's not all of them, but I don't want to have to go down to a memorial where my son died on 9/11 and look at a mosque. If you ask me, it's a religion of hate." Deputy Chief Riches lost his son Jim, a firefighter, on 9/11.
Also quoted in the article was Rosemary Cain of Massapequa, L.I., whose son, firefighter George Cain, 35, was killed in the 2001 attacks, she called the project,
"a slap in the face. I think it's despicable. That's sacred ground," said Cain, "How could anybody give them permission to build a mosque there? It tarnishes the area."
The mosque would be located in a former Burlington Coat Factory outlet which is just 2 blocks or 600 feet from where the World Trade Towers once stood. I find it ironic that the building has been mostly abandoned since 9/11 because the landing gear of one of the hijacked airplanes crashed through its roof.
The leader and co-founder of the project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, paid $4.85 million dollars for the building in December last year.
In a Fox NY channel 5 interview on Thursday, a 9/11 firefighter Tim Brown described the mosque project as,
"a Trojan horse being rolled into our most sacred ground". He asked the mosque's imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, where did Rauf get the reported $4.85 million in cash to purchase the building?
Needless to say, that question was never answered in full; Rauf would say only that the cash came from “members of the community.”
Tim Brown is a former NY firefighter and one of the few 9/11 survivors to survive the collapse of both WTC towers. He was also a first responder to the 1993 WTC bombing, also executed by a group of Islamic terrorists. He is the founder of the website thebravest.com.
I spoke with Matt Dunning, the Associate Editor of the Tribeca Trib newspaper on the telephone on Sunday. The Tribeca Trib is a monthly newspaper that covers lower Manhattan. Unlike most publications today, they actually report the news. Mr. Dunning explained to me that they “do not even do editorials for that reason”, they report on facts. He was at the CB1 board meeting Wednesday night. We spoke about his article on the meeting and I must say I was shocked when Dunning told me that “not one person from the community came to the meeting was in opposition. If someone had been, we would have reported it.”
This was a public board meeting, and no one who lives or works in this area even showed up to voice his or her opinion that they opposed the mosque? Have we actually arrived at the point in this country where forgiveness or ignorance overrides sense and responsibility?
Back on December 16th, 2009, in an article written shortly after the purchase of the building, Youssef M. Ibrahim wrote the following in Hudson NY,
“As a former New York Times and Wall Street Journal correspondent, and as a New York Sun columnist who covered Islamic fundamentalism extensively overseas and in the USA, I find the facts oddly lacking. The story as reported fails to answer, and avoids asking, so many pertinent questions.
The source of money matters as a significant part of the hundreds of mosques being built and already erected in this country double up as cultural Islamic centers for distributing literature-- Islamist propaganda in fact—from Bay Ridge Brooklyn to Detroit, and for schools growing Muslim minorities. They house Imams of unknown origin and education, many of whom do not speak a word of English but preach in Arabic and Urdu -- radical messages, it often turns out.
As a reporter familiar with the Arab communities of the USA, I doubt the faithful fork out all that money for mega mosques, and if they did, the mayor’s office should prove it, not merely accept someone’s say so. It is an established fact that a significant percentage of the mosques built in the USA in the past two decades are receiving a disproportionate amount of their funds not only from the Saudis, but also the UAE, Qatar and Iran -- all problematic Islamists activist nations. The government just discontinued work on a major Iranian-funded mosque and center in New York City, which had operated under the radar since the days of the good old Shah of Iran under the auspices of the Pahlavi Foundation, and has been owned since 1979 by the Mullahs of Iran.
The context here is that 15 of the 19 perpetrators of the attacks -- on the very site where this new mosque shall rise -- came from Saudi Arabia.”
He ended his article with “One would hope for a follow-up story or stories, and that New York City and its citizens at least ask harder questions, rather than submit to being misled in the interest of political correctness.”
The estimated cost for the 13 story building is $100 million dollars. According to page 8 of the ASMA website financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 they have “temporarily restricted net assets” as follows:
UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) $ 53,664
MDG3 Fund (Millennium Development Goals) $481,942
Hunt Alternatives Fund $15,000
Carnegie Corporation of N.Y. $ 144,752
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund $50,000
Qatar government fund $576,312
Interestingly, I had no trouble locating all of the groups as linked above, except for the Qatar government fund, which donated over half a million dollars to ASMA in 2009.
The fact that the UN has a hand in this really comes as no surprise given that just last week they embraced the Islamic Republic of Iran by allowing them to become a member of The Commission on the Status of Women, as I wrote about in my article “Even if it were a joke, it wouldn’t be funny”.
Also, according to the same financial statement, on page 10 of the report they list their “Expenditure report for the period October 13, 2008 to June 30, 2009” leaving ASMA with a balance of $988,586.00 when converted from Euros to Dollars using the conversion noted on the same page.
So, assuming this “independent” audit is correct they ended their fiscal year on 6-30-09 with a balance of almost 1 million dollars. I wonder then, where is the money for a 100 million dollar mosque coming from?
As Youssef M. Ibrahim wrote in his article “It is an established fact that a significant percentage of the mosques built in the USA in the past two decades are receiving a disproportionate amount of their funds not only from the Saudis, but also the UAE, Qatar and Iran -- all problematic Islamists activist nations.”
Does anyone have the sense to connect the dots and follow the money trail? Is it not enough that the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11 are from the same country that is funding mosques all over our country, that we have to allow them to fund the building of a mosque in the very location where they committed the most heinous act in American history?
Using this analogy, had the bomb last week in Times Square actually exploded, we would be planning a mosque in Times Square right now. Have we lost our minds so much that we have moved to erecting monuments to perpetrators and not victims?
Currently, in the U.S. there are over 1200 mosques, with at least one in each state. I don’t see the need to build a new mosque at the same location where nearly 3000 people were murdered by terrorists who followed an Islamic ideology that will be preached inside this new one.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.
From:
"Act for America"
homelearnactdonatelocal chaptersContact Congress
ACT! for America
May 10, 2010
Exclusive: Spitting in the Face of Everyone Murdered on 9/11
Gadi Adelman
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6177/pub_detail.asp
[Editor’s note: highlights added]
Well, it’s official, we have all lost our minds.
I read about this last December, plans for a mosque at Ground Zero, but like a fool, I assumed that New Yorkers would never let this come to pass. A mosque just 600 feet from where the World Trade Center towers once stood. I thought to myself; no way will New York or anyone with a heart or soul, not to mention just plain common sense, ever allow a mosque to be built anywhere near Ground Zero. But, as I said, I am a fool.
The project of a community center /mosque is being proposed by two organizations, the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA) and their sister organization, the Cordoba Initiative. This past Wednesday night they made their presentation to the Community Board of lower Manhattan (CB1). Twelve people sit on the board and would you like to guess what the final vote was? Get ready to grab a barf bag … the 12 members voted unanimously to support the project. Yes, it’s not a typo, it was unanimous, all were in favor and, to give you an idea of how excited the board members were, they applauded during the presentation.
In an article in the New York Daily News on Thursday, retired FDNY Deputy Chief Jim Riches said,
"I realize it's not all of them, but I don't want to have to go down to a memorial where my son died on 9/11 and look at a mosque. If you ask me, it's a religion of hate." Deputy Chief Riches lost his son Jim, a firefighter, on 9/11.
Also quoted in the article was Rosemary Cain of Massapequa, L.I., whose son, firefighter George Cain, 35, was killed in the 2001 attacks, she called the project,
"a slap in the face. I think it's despicable. That's sacred ground," said Cain, "How could anybody give them permission to build a mosque there? It tarnishes the area."
The mosque would be located in a former Burlington Coat Factory outlet which is just 2 blocks or 600 feet from where the World Trade Towers once stood. I find it ironic that the building has been mostly abandoned since 9/11 because the landing gear of one of the hijacked airplanes crashed through its roof.
The leader and co-founder of the project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, paid $4.85 million dollars for the building in December last year.
In a Fox NY channel 5 interview on Thursday, a 9/11 firefighter Tim Brown described the mosque project as,
"a Trojan horse being rolled into our most sacred ground". He asked the mosque's imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, where did Rauf get the reported $4.85 million in cash to purchase the building?
Needless to say, that question was never answered in full; Rauf would say only that the cash came from “members of the community.”
Tim Brown is a former NY firefighter and one of the few 9/11 survivors to survive the collapse of both WTC towers. He was also a first responder to the 1993 WTC bombing, also executed by a group of Islamic terrorists. He is the founder of the website thebravest.com.
I spoke with Matt Dunning, the Associate Editor of the Tribeca Trib newspaper on the telephone on Sunday. The Tribeca Trib is a monthly newspaper that covers lower Manhattan. Unlike most publications today, they actually report the news. Mr. Dunning explained to me that they “do not even do editorials for that reason”, they report on facts. He was at the CB1 board meeting Wednesday night. We spoke about his article on the meeting and I must say I was shocked when Dunning told me that “not one person from the community came to the meeting was in opposition. If someone had been, we would have reported it.”
This was a public board meeting, and no one who lives or works in this area even showed up to voice his or her opinion that they opposed the mosque? Have we actually arrived at the point in this country where forgiveness or ignorance overrides sense and responsibility?
Back on December 16th, 2009, in an article written shortly after the purchase of the building, Youssef M. Ibrahim wrote the following in Hudson NY,
“As a former New York Times and Wall Street Journal correspondent, and as a New York Sun columnist who covered Islamic fundamentalism extensively overseas and in the USA, I find the facts oddly lacking. The story as reported fails to answer, and avoids asking, so many pertinent questions.
The source of money matters as a significant part of the hundreds of mosques being built and already erected in this country double up as cultural Islamic centers for distributing literature-- Islamist propaganda in fact—from Bay Ridge Brooklyn to Detroit, and for schools growing Muslim minorities. They house Imams of unknown origin and education, many of whom do not speak a word of English but preach in Arabic and Urdu -- radical messages, it often turns out.
As a reporter familiar with the Arab communities of the USA, I doubt the faithful fork out all that money for mega mosques, and if they did, the mayor’s office should prove it, not merely accept someone’s say so. It is an established fact that a significant percentage of the mosques built in the USA in the past two decades are receiving a disproportionate amount of their funds not only from the Saudis, but also the UAE, Qatar and Iran -- all problematic Islamists activist nations. The government just discontinued work on a major Iranian-funded mosque and center in New York City, which had operated under the radar since the days of the good old Shah of Iran under the auspices of the Pahlavi Foundation, and has been owned since 1979 by the Mullahs of Iran.
The context here is that 15 of the 19 perpetrators of the attacks -- on the very site where this new mosque shall rise -- came from Saudi Arabia.”
He ended his article with “One would hope for a follow-up story or stories, and that New York City and its citizens at least ask harder questions, rather than submit to being misled in the interest of political correctness.”
The estimated cost for the 13 story building is $100 million dollars. According to page 8 of the ASMA website financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 they have “temporarily restricted net assets” as follows:
UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) $ 53,664
MDG3 Fund (Millennium Development Goals) $481,942
Hunt Alternatives Fund $15,000
Carnegie Corporation of N.Y. $ 144,752
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund $50,000
Qatar government fund $576,312
Interestingly, I had no trouble locating all of the groups as linked above, except for the Qatar government fund, which donated over half a million dollars to ASMA in 2009.
The fact that the UN has a hand in this really comes as no surprise given that just last week they embraced the Islamic Republic of Iran by allowing them to become a member of The Commission on the Status of Women, as I wrote about in my article “Even if it were a joke, it wouldn’t be funny”.
Also, according to the same financial statement, on page 10 of the report they list their “Expenditure report for the period October 13, 2008 to June 30, 2009” leaving ASMA with a balance of $988,586.00 when converted from Euros to Dollars using the conversion noted on the same page.
So, assuming this “independent” audit is correct they ended their fiscal year on 6-30-09 with a balance of almost 1 million dollars. I wonder then, where is the money for a 100 million dollar mosque coming from?
As Youssef M. Ibrahim wrote in his article “It is an established fact that a significant percentage of the mosques built in the USA in the past two decades are receiving a disproportionate amount of their funds not only from the Saudis, but also the UAE, Qatar and Iran -- all problematic Islamists activist nations.”
Does anyone have the sense to connect the dots and follow the money trail? Is it not enough that the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11 are from the same country that is funding mosques all over our country, that we have to allow them to fund the building of a mosque in the very location where they committed the most heinous act in American history?
Using this analogy, had the bomb last week in Times Square actually exploded, we would be planning a mosque in Times Square right now. Have we lost our minds so much that we have moved to erecting monuments to perpetrators and not victims?
Currently, in the U.S. there are over 1200 mosques, with at least one in each state. I don’t see the need to build a new mosque at the same location where nearly 3000 people were murdered by terrorists who followed an Islamic ideology that will be preached inside this new one.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.
FLOTILLA
June 14, 2010
The Gaza Flotilla Ambush: What Did the White House Know?
By James Lewis
"What did the President know, and when did he know it?" asked Howard Baker about President Nixon during the Watergate hearings. The carefully planned May 31 ambush of Israeli naval commandos by armed Turkish martyrdom fanatics, in collusion with Jodie Evans of the radical leftist group Code Pink and along with Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, raises precisely the same question.
Most conspiracy theories are hogwash, but not all of them. Stalinism really was a conspiracy to infiltrate, sabotage, and ultimately conquer the West. It had some spectacular successes, like stealing nuclear secrets from the Manhattan Project, a feat for which physicist Klaus Fuchner was celebrated in Communist East Germany.
The Boomer Left's "march through the institutions" was really a secretive plan to take over U.S. universities and media in the 1970s and '80s. The Great March shifted the whole U.S. media and political culture to the left.
For decades, the network of leftists and Islamic fascists behind the Gaza ambush has been trying to create a media extravaganza to make Israel look bad before the world. Call it a conspiracy, or call it a network of like-minded radicals and Islamofascists. Whatever it was, their chance came on May 31 off the coast of Gaza.
As Robert Maginnis just wrote,
The contrived Turkish-led aid flotilla crisis was intended to force Israel to lift its arms blockade of Gaza. While the Israelis were victorious in forcing the flotilla to its demands, the political outcomes are still reverberating around the globe. For now the Islamist forces have been emboldened, Turkey has been added to the list of terrorism supporters and long-term Israeli security has been weakened.
Obama is now trying to use the flotilla crisis to force concessions from Israel.
My question is whether Obama's network of associates colluded before the fact to provoke a "suicide by cop" spectacular to put Israel at a political disadvantage.
The evidence for Hamas and Turkish connivance before the event is now widely recognized. Three days before the bloodshed, the Hamas TV channel in Gaza showed a Yemeni professor proclaiming that "as much as the heroes on the flotilla want to reach Gaza, the option of martyrdom is more desirable to them." That same day, Al Jazeera TV, seen throughout the Middle East, reported of the "Freedom Flotilla," "Before Its Departure for Gaza: Activists on Board Chant Intifada Songs and Praise Martyrdom."
Shortly before the May 31 ambush, Obama's "anti-terror Czar," John O. Brennan, made worldwide headlines by praising jihad (martyrdom warfare to convert infidels by force or terror), reciting a passage in Arabic signaling his sympathy and approval, and referring to Jeruslaem as "al Quds," its Arabic name. Jihad has a deliberate double meaning. To Western suckers, it means the inner struggle for Muslim virtue. To Iran and Saudi Arabia, Hamas, Hezb'allah, and now Turkey, it means killing the infidels unless they surrender to Islam.
The Turkish cruise boat, decorated with an enormous red Turkish flag, was owned by the IHH and backed by the Islamist government of Turkey, including Prime Minister Erdogan, who has described Israel as "a festering boil in the Middle East that spreads hate and enmity." Erdogan also claims that "It is not possible for a Muslim to commit genocide" -- while congratulating the Islamist perpetrators of genocide in the Sudan.
That was not the story spread by the Western media, and especially not oby Code Pink, the radical leftist group led by Jodie Evans, or by Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, trying to agitate for a march on the Gaza blockade in Egypt at the very same time. The radicals promised peace and love if only Israel lifted the blockade on terror materiel for Hamas.
Is there any chance that Bill Ayers and Jodie Evans and the other Americans did not know whom they were in bed with? If anybody wants to know what Islamic fascists say and do when they get a chance, just look at the daily stream of English translations from Arabic and Persian on the MEMRI website. A little sample from Imam Ahmad Ibrahimi, Coordinator of Algerian Delegation to "Freedom Flotilla": "Our Hatred of Them Is So Intense That We Wished We Could Have Been Bombs and Blown Ourselves Up among the Brothers of Apes and Pigs." Hamas TV and the Arab and Iranian propaganda channels drive that message home to their captive audiences day after day.
In the upshot, "peaceful protesters" from Code Pink provided false-flag cover to the Turkish cruise ship Mavi Marmara, filled with an estimated forty Turkish wannabe suicides and even owned by the Turkish version of Hamas. The Turks engaged in standard pre-martyrdom rituals before leaving, wearing white headbands, writing their last wills and testaments, chanting martyrdom slogans, and equipping themselves with curved knives, steel bars, night goggles, and perhaps guns.
The idea that Code Pink and the others did not see the Turkish suicides-to-be getting ready before the confrontation is absurd. They knew. In fact, according to Bill Ayers in the days before the crisis, Hamas was guaranteeing the safety of Code Pink in Gaza.
In a New York Times op-ed, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren wrote:
The Mavi Marmara on Monday was not motivated by peace. On the contrary, the religious extremists embedded among those on board were paid and equipped to attack Israelis -- both by their own hands as well as by aiding Hamas -- and to destroy any hope of peace. Millions have already seen the Al Jazeera broadcast showing these "activists" chanting "Khaibar! Khaibar!" -- a reference to a Muslim massacre of Jews in the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century. YouTube viewers saw Israeli troops, armed with crowd-dispersing paintball guns and side arms for emergency protection, being beaten and hurled over the railings of the ship by attackers wielding iron bars.
The Turkish chant "Khaibar! Khaibar!" is the equivalent of "Auschwitz! Auschwitz!" It is the name of a famous genocide of the Jews of Mohammed's time.
In the upshot, the Israelis fell into the Turkish-Code Pink trap and lucked out with only six badly wounded soldiers. The suiciders got what they were looking for: martyrdom for Allah and outraged anti-Israel headlines around the world.
What did the White House know, and when did it know it? That's what I am wondering. We have a mass of circumstantial evidence. But I wonder: Was there culpable collusion among the Obama White House, Jodie Evans, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood -- or was it a matter of like-minded individuals acting independently?
White House National Security staffers have long been directly involved in undercover operations, from LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin deception to Ollie North's Iran Contra outreach to the mullahs.
Shortly afterward, the White House sent its advisor Dalia Mogahed to the U.K. to appear on a radical Islamist television show. Ms. Mogahed's message to the U.K. audience was that "Sharia Law is misunderstood." Shariah law "includes the controversial 'Hadd offences,' crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft."
The Obama White House was therefore signaling to Islamist radicals that it would be willing to indulge their actions against Israel and the West.
Jodie Evans and Code Pink also ensured the presence on the flotilla of many small leftist delegations from Europe and the U.S., who flew home immediately after the Turkish ambush to spread malicious disinformation. One of these "eyewitness accounts" has since been retracted, as the true story has emerged via YouTube and the blogosphere and even filtered through some of the mainstream media.
As for the wildly biased media, Reuters has confessed to yet another "fauxtography" scandal by cropping Turkish weapons out of the photos of the fight on the cruise ship.
After the Gaza ambush hit the headlines, another amazing coincidence occurred. Within a few days, the usual liberal chorus simultaneously called for Israel to lift the weapons blockade around Gaza. The chanting chorus included:
1. Barack Obama
2. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
3. Turkish P.M. Erdogan
4. The U.N. Security Council
5. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon
6. Britain, Spain, the EU, Egypt, and Iran
This is pure Alinsky, giving the impression of unanimous "non-negotiable" demands after an agitprop stunt grabs the headlines. It's what Obama has done by publicly scapegoating the car companies, Wall Street, the banks, Rush Limbaugh, doctors who supposedly perform operations on kids just for the money, the State of Arizona, British Petroleum, and anybody else who can be shocked and scared by the President of the United States. It is Obama's SOP. The attack on Israel looked like just another example of Obama's Chicago Way.
Let's back up for a moment and look at it strategically.
Obama is in a huge mess. His ratings are in the dumps. The Democrats in Congress are running away from him. The Gulf oil fiasco has even Louisiana Dems raging against him. The economy is entering a second dip.
So Obama desperately needs a foreign affairs victory. But he has alienated all of our allies, including the U.K., France, Germany, and Japan. He's even scared the Chinese, who will lose a ton of money if the US economy gets worse. He has promised a New World Order to the Muslims, but they haven't seen any results.
What do you do if you're Barack Obama and you've been surrounded for decades by Jodie Evans, John Brennan, and Rashid Khalidi? Not to mention Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Bill Ayers?
Your playbook says to create a provocation to give cover for a radical shift in U.S. policy against Israel. Whether the White House knew what was going to happen, or whether Obama just watched it benignly from a distance, we don't know. I believe there is a serious, rational question whether this was an NSC black op, just like LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin and JFK's assassination of the president of South Vietnam.
The Watergate burglaries were known to a lot of people, including Mark Felt at the FBI, who leaked it to the WaPo in the guise of Deep Throat. If the Gaza ambush was stirred up with White House knowledge or collaboration, there must be large numbers of people around the world who know all about it. Turkey's role has now been exposed. The role played by Hamas is clear. Code Pink's open collusion is a public fact.
Stand by for more revelations. I don't think they will get away with this.
28 Comments on "The Gaza Flotilla Ambush: What Did the White House Know?"
MORE: Deception and Ground Zero Mosque
homelearnactdonatelocal chaptersContact Congress
ACT! for America
Deception and the “Ground Zero Mosque”
One more reason to sign our petition
Dear Art,
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims his mosque at 9/11 “ground zero” will be a “community cultural center” for “multi-faith dialogue.”
Perhaps the Manhattan Borough president and the New York Community Board members who’ve been duped by this soothing talk should have taken a short course in taqiyya, sharia law’s sanctioning of deception.
They should have looked more closely at Rauf’s words and writings. Especially those in Arabic. Check out the Pajamas Media story below (highlights added).
What is being foisted on not just New York, but on America, is a “victory shrine,” a monument to sharia law and the supremacist ideology of radical Islam—at the very site where nearly 3,000 were murdered by adherents to this ideology.
Remember—the proposed grand opening is September 11, 2011, the ten year anniversary of the most horrific jihadist attack on American soil in history. Symbolism in the Muslim world matters.
If you haven’t yet signed our petition opposing this mosque, please don’t wait any longer. Please add your name to the more than 42,000 who have signed thus far.
We’ll be announcing additional steps to oppose this mosque soon. But in the meantime, please sign our petition today!
Ground Zero Imam: ‘I Don’t Believe in Religious Dialogue’
Exclusive new translations from Arabic websites reveal Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf seriously misleads New Yorkers about his intention to infiltrate Sharia law through his Ground Zero mosque. (Don't miss PJTV's coverage of the Ground Zero mosque story.)
May 27, 2010
- by Walid Shoebat
Is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf — founder of the hugely controversial Ground Zero mosque — lying to the American public and his fellow New Yorkers?
Pajamas Media has uncovered extraordinary contradictions between what he says in English and what he says in Arabic that raise serious questions about his true intentions in the construction of the mosque.
On May 25, 2010, Abdul Rauf wrote an article for the New York Daily News insisting:
My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society. [emphasis added]
Oh, really?
Only two months before, on March 24, 2010, Abdul Rauf is quoted in an article in Arabic for the website Rights4All entitled “The Most Prominent Imam in New York: ‘I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue.’”
Yes, you read that correctly and, yes, that is an accurate translation of Abdul Rauf. And Right4All is not an obscure blog, but the website of the media department of Cairo University, the leading educational institution of the Arabic-speaking world.
In the article, the imam said the following of the “religious dialogue” and “interweaving into the mainstream society” that he so solemnly seems to advocate in the Daily News and elsewhere:
This phrase is inaccurate. Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers, regardless of being Muslim or Christian. The image of Muslims in the West is complex which needs to be remedied.
But that was two months ago. More recently — in fact on May 26, one day after his Daily News column – Abdul Rauf appeared on the popular Islamic website Hadiyul-Islam with even more disturbing opinions. That’s the same website where, ironically enough, a fatwa was simultaneously being issued forbidding a Muslim to sell land to a Christian, because the Christian wanted to build a church on it.
In his interview on Hadiyul-Islam by Sa’da Abdul Maksoud, Abdul Rauf was asked his views on Sharia (Islamic religious law) and the Islamic state. He responded:
Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed. [emphasis added]
When questioned about this, Abdul Rauf continued: “Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.” He added:
New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad … so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia. [emphasis in translation]
In yet plainer English, forget the separation of church and state. Abdul Rauf’s goal is the imposition of Shariah law — in every country, even democratic ones like the U.S.
But these attitudes are nothing new for the (alas, few) people who have been paying attention. Way back on September 30, 2001, Feisal Abdul Rauf was interviewed on 60 Minutes by host Ed Bradley. Their verbatim dialogue from this CBS News transcript concluded:
BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
BRADLEY: OK. You say that we’re an accessory?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.
BRADLEY: How?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.
This is the “anti-terrorist” of the Daily News article?
The Feisal Abdul Rauf who spoke to 60 Minutes in 2001 is the same Abdul Rauf who, in the last couple of months, espoused the spread of Sharia law on Arabic websites and said the opposite in the pages of the Daily News. He is the man New York City authorities are about to allow to build a mosque on Ground Zero.
Caveat emptor. Meanwhile, perhaps some enterprising reporter should ask Abdul Rauf his opinion of that fatwa forbidding Muslims from selling land to Christians who intend to build a church on it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.
------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.
homelearnactdonatelocal chaptersContact Congress
ACT! for America
Deception and the “Ground Zero Mosque”
One more reason to sign our petition
Dear Art,
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims his mosque at 9/11 “ground zero” will be a “community cultural center” for “multi-faith dialogue.”
Perhaps the Manhattan Borough president and the New York Community Board members who’ve been duped by this soothing talk should have taken a short course in taqiyya, sharia law’s sanctioning of deception.
They should have looked more closely at Rauf’s words and writings. Especially those in Arabic. Check out the Pajamas Media story below (highlights added).
What is being foisted on not just New York, but on America, is a “victory shrine,” a monument to sharia law and the supremacist ideology of radical Islam—at the very site where nearly 3,000 were murdered by adherents to this ideology.
Remember—the proposed grand opening is September 11, 2011, the ten year anniversary of the most horrific jihadist attack on American soil in history. Symbolism in the Muslim world matters.
If you haven’t yet signed our petition opposing this mosque, please don’t wait any longer. Please add your name to the more than 42,000 who have signed thus far.
We’ll be announcing additional steps to oppose this mosque soon. But in the meantime, please sign our petition today!
Ground Zero Imam: ‘I Don’t Believe in Religious Dialogue’
Exclusive new translations from Arabic websites reveal Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf seriously misleads New Yorkers about his intention to infiltrate Sharia law through his Ground Zero mosque. (Don't miss PJTV's coverage of the Ground Zero mosque story.)
May 27, 2010
- by Walid Shoebat
Is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf — founder of the hugely controversial Ground Zero mosque — lying to the American public and his fellow New Yorkers?
Pajamas Media has uncovered extraordinary contradictions between what he says in English and what he says in Arabic that raise serious questions about his true intentions in the construction of the mosque.
On May 25, 2010, Abdul Rauf wrote an article for the New York Daily News insisting:
My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society. [emphasis added]
Oh, really?
Only two months before, on March 24, 2010, Abdul Rauf is quoted in an article in Arabic for the website Rights4All entitled “The Most Prominent Imam in New York: ‘I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue.’”
Yes, you read that correctly and, yes, that is an accurate translation of Abdul Rauf. And Right4All is not an obscure blog, but the website of the media department of Cairo University, the leading educational institution of the Arabic-speaking world.
In the article, the imam said the following of the “religious dialogue” and “interweaving into the mainstream society” that he so solemnly seems to advocate in the Daily News and elsewhere:
This phrase is inaccurate. Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers, regardless of being Muslim or Christian. The image of Muslims in the West is complex which needs to be remedied.
But that was two months ago. More recently — in fact on May 26, one day after his Daily News column – Abdul Rauf appeared on the popular Islamic website Hadiyul-Islam with even more disturbing opinions. That’s the same website where, ironically enough, a fatwa was simultaneously being issued forbidding a Muslim to sell land to a Christian, because the Christian wanted to build a church on it.
In his interview on Hadiyul-Islam by Sa’da Abdul Maksoud, Abdul Rauf was asked his views on Sharia (Islamic religious law) and the Islamic state. He responded:
Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed. [emphasis added]
When questioned about this, Abdul Rauf continued: “Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.” He added:
New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad … so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia. [emphasis in translation]
In yet plainer English, forget the separation of church and state. Abdul Rauf’s goal is the imposition of Shariah law — in every country, even democratic ones like the U.S.
But these attitudes are nothing new for the (alas, few) people who have been paying attention. Way back on September 30, 2001, Feisal Abdul Rauf was interviewed on 60 Minutes by host Ed Bradley. Their verbatim dialogue from this CBS News transcript concluded:
BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
BRADLEY: OK. You say that we’re an accessory?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.
BRADLEY: How?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.
This is the “anti-terrorist” of the Daily News article?
The Feisal Abdul Rauf who spoke to 60 Minutes in 2001 is the same Abdul Rauf who, in the last couple of months, espoused the spread of Sharia law on Arabic websites and said the opposite in the pages of the Daily News. He is the man New York City authorities are about to allow to build a mosque on Ground Zero.
Caveat emptor. Meanwhile, perhaps some enterprising reporter should ask Abdul Rauf his opinion of that fatwa forbidding Muslims from selling land to Christians who intend to build a church on it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.
------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.
GROUND ZERO MOSQUE - NEW INFO TO STOP THIS TRAVESTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxFzFIDbKpg
"http://www.youtube.com/v/qUYIHRRaPmA">
http://tool.donation-net.net/Images/Email/1097/06032010MAYORBLOOMBERGLETTER.PDF
GROUND ZERO MOSQUE - MEW INFO TO STOP THIS TRAVESTY
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=111
Mosque Planned: While the world laughs at us
9/11 Families Reject Towering Mosque Planned for Ground Zero Site
New York, May 24, 2010 -- 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America (9/11 FSSA) adamantly rejects the plan for a mosque to be built atop a planned 15-story structure that would tower over the site where nearly 3,000 people were killed by Islamic terrorists.
According to the project's leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the mosque and "Muslim-led community center" is to be called the Cordoba House, named after the historic period when the Islamic Caliphate in Cordoba ruled much of Europe and non-Muslims lived as second-class citizens under Islamic rule.
Victims' families view the imam's expressed plan to "leverage" the mosque's proximity to Ground Zero to engage in proselytizing and to "grow the Muslim community," as shockingly insensitive to the history of the site where their loved ones were slaughtered in the worst terrorist attack by extremist Muslims in America's history; following the attack, 20,000 body parts were recovered in a nine-month operation to remove 1.8 million tons of rubble from Lower Manhattan.
"Imam Rauf is a Muslim cleric who, immediately after 9/11, blamed the attacks on U.S. treatment of Muslims, asserting that Osama Bin Ladin was 'made in the U.S.A,'" said Debra Burlingame, co-founder of 9/11 FSSA, whose brother was the pilot of the American Airlines flight which was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. "We do not accept the Cordoba organization's view that we need Imam Rauf to lecture us about religious tolerance in a city still dealing with the consequences of the attack that he claims we brought on ourselves."
Last Monday, representatives of 9/11 FSSA met with Sharif El-Gamal, owner and CEO of Soho Properties, the corporation that purchased the two buildings where the mosque will be built at 43-45 Park Place, and asked him to name the investors in the mosque project. Mr. El-Gamal refused, citing the advice of his attorneys, stating that "this is private property" and that "we can build this 'as of right.'" The property was purchased with $4.85 million in cash.
Imam Rauf is now publicly stating in a professionally-organized PR campaign that the building will be a community center, "not a mosque." However, Mr. El-Gamal showed 9/11 FSSA members architectural renderings in which a mosque, located on the top floor of the 15-story building, would have a commanding view of the entire Ground Zero neighborhood.
Equally troubling is the fact that, while the stated purpose of the project is to engage in interfaith dialogue and cultural egalitarianism, Imam Rauf embraces Shariah, the Arabic word for Islamic law, a sociopolitical system of jurisprudence based upon the Koran which supersedes man-made law and which rejects the Constitutional doctrine of the separation of church and state. Islamic countries that embrace Shariah and political Islam are known for brutal policies that discriminate against women, gays, and religious minorities. Shariah law is entirely incompatible with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and would violate 1st Amendment protections of speech, assembly and the free exercise of religion.
We feel that the attempt to use our loved ones' deaths and the painful legacy of 9/11 still felt by New Yorkers to engage in a campaign to reverse America's core doctrine of religious freedom -- and to do so under the guise of interfaith understanding -- is a gross insult to the memory of those who were killed on that terrible day.
9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America asks concerned Americans -- regardless of race, color, creed, or ethnic origin--to join us in denouncing this effort to chip away at America's bedrock principle of religious freedom.
http://tool.donation-net.net/Images/Email/1097/06032010MAYORBLOOMBERGLETTER.PDF
www.911familiesforamerica.org
///////////////////////////
Up to 10,000 Show Up for SIOA No 911 Mosque Rally
Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer - NoMosquesAtGroundZero.wordpress.com, June 8th, 2010
The D-Day at Ground Zero Rally was a success!
We honored those who died on the beaches of Normandy and those who were murdered on 9-11 . . There will be many videos posted of those who spoke. Leading off with one of the co-sponsors of the rally, Pamela Geller of SOIA (Stop The Islamization of America). Will write more later…meanwhile, we’ll let the videos “do the talking”:
http://nomosquesatgroundzero.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/report-video-from-no-mosque-at-ground-zero-rally/
7 NEW VIDEOS posted. Scroll Down to see them…. (Check back as more videos will be posted each day)
Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) presented The SIOA No 9/11 Mosque Rally at Ground Zero on June 6 at 12 noon FEATURING -
Pamela Geller of Atlasshrugs and
Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch (see Robert on Fox News here)
are joined by supporting groups (partial list):
ACT for America (ACT Manhattan chapter)
Z Street
Freedom Defense Initiative
No Mosque at Ground Zero
Faith Freedom International
VAST
Stuart Kaufman
American Bulldogs
Center for Security Policy and
World artist Marc Richard Rubin.
Mosque Planned: While the world laughs at us
9/11 Families Reject Towering Mosque Planned for Ground Zero Site
New York, May 24, 2010 -- 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America (9/11 FSSA) adamantly rejects the plan for a mosque to be built atop a planned 15-story structure that would tower over the site where nearly 3,000 people were killed by Islamic terrorists.
According to the project's leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the mosque and "Muslim-led community center" is to be called the Cordoba House, named after the historic period when the Islamic Caliphate in Cordoba ruled much of Europe and non-Muslims lived as second-class citizens under Islamic rule.
Victims' families view the imam's expressed plan to "leverage" the mosque's proximity to Ground Zero to engage in proselytizing and to "grow the Muslim community," as shockingly insensitive to the history of the site where their loved ones were slaughtered in the worst terrorist attack by extremist Muslims in America's history; following the attack, 20,000 body parts were recovered in a nine-month operation to remove 1.8 million tons of rubble from Lower Manhattan.
"Imam Rauf is a Muslim cleric who, immediately after 9/11, blamed the attacks on U.S. treatment of Muslims, asserting that Osama Bin Ladin was 'made in the U.S.A,'" said Debra Burlingame, co-founder of 9/11 FSSA, whose brother was the pilot of the American Airlines flight which was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. "We do not accept the Cordoba organization's view that we need Imam Rauf to lecture us about religious tolerance in a city still dealing with the consequences of the attack that he claims we brought on ourselves."
Last Monday, representatives of 9/11 FSSA met with Sharif El-Gamal, owner and CEO of Soho Properties, the corporation that purchased the two buildings where the mosque will be built at 43-45 Park Place, and asked him to name the investors in the mosque project. Mr. El-Gamal refused, citing the advice of his attorneys, stating that "this is private property" and that "we can build this 'as of right.'" The property was purchased with $4.85 million in cash.
Imam Rauf is now publicly stating in a professionally-organized PR campaign that the building will be a community center, "not a mosque." However, Mr. El-Gamal showed 9/11 FSSA members architectural renderings in which a mosque, located on the top floor of the 15-story building, would have a commanding view of the entire Ground Zero neighborhood.
Equally troubling is the fact that, while the stated purpose of the project is to engage in interfaith dialogue and cultural egalitarianism, Imam Rauf embraces Shariah, the Arabic word for Islamic law, a sociopolitical system of jurisprudence based upon the Koran which supersedes man-made law and which rejects the Constitutional doctrine of the separation of church and state. Islamic countries that embrace Shariah and political Islam are known for brutal policies that discriminate against women, gays, and religious minorities. Shariah law is entirely incompatible with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and would violate 1st Amendment protections of speech, assembly and the free exercise of religion.
We feel that the attempt to use our loved ones' deaths and the painful legacy of 9/11 still felt by New Yorkers to engage in a campaign to reverse America's core doctrine of religious freedom -- and to do so under the guise of interfaith understanding -- is a gross insult to the memory of those who were killed on that terrible day.
9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America asks concerned Americans -- regardless of race, color, creed, or ethnic origin--to join us in denouncing this effort to chip away at America's bedrock principle of religious freedom.
www.911familiesforamerica.org
New York, May 24, 2010 -- 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America (9/11 FSSA) adamantly rejects the plan for a mosque to be built atop a planned 15-story structure that would tower over the site where nearly 3,000 people were killed by Islamic terrorists.
According to the project's leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the mosque and "Muslim-led community center" is to be called the Cordoba House, named after the historic period when the Islamic Caliphate in Cordoba ruled much of Europe and non-Muslims lived as second-class citizens under Islamic rule.
Victims' families view the imam's expressed plan to "leverage" the mosque's proximity to Ground Zero to engage in proselytizing and to "grow the Muslim community," as shockingly insensitive to the history of the site where their loved ones were slaughtered in the worst terrorist attack by extremist Muslims in America's history; following the attack, 20,000 body parts were recovered in a nine-month operation to remove 1.8 million tons of rubble from Lower Manhattan.
"Imam Rauf is a Muslim cleric who, immediately after 9/11, blamed the attacks on U.S. treatment of Muslims, asserting that Osama Bin Ladin was 'made in the U.S.A,'" said Debra Burlingame, co-founder of 9/11 FSSA, whose brother was the pilot of the American Airlines flight which was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. "We do not accept the Cordoba organization's view that we need Imam Rauf to lecture us about religious tolerance in a city still dealing with the consequences of the attack that he claims we brought on ourselves."
Last Monday, representatives of 9/11 FSSA met with Sharif El-Gamal, owner and CEO of Soho Properties, the corporation that purchased the two buildings where the mosque will be built at 43-45 Park Place, and asked him to name the investors in the mosque project. Mr. El-Gamal refused, citing the advice of his attorneys, stating that "this is private property" and that "we can build this 'as of right.'" The property was purchased with $4.85 million in cash.
Imam Rauf is now publicly stating in a professionally-organized PR campaign that the building will be a community center, "not a mosque." However, Mr. El-Gamal showed 9/11 FSSA members architectural renderings in which a mosque, located on the top floor of the 15-story building, would have a commanding view of the entire Ground Zero neighborhood.
Equally troubling is the fact that, while the stated purpose of the project is to engage in interfaith dialogue and cultural egalitarianism, Imam Rauf embraces Shariah, the Arabic word for Islamic law, a sociopolitical system of jurisprudence based upon the Koran which supersedes man-made law and which rejects the Constitutional doctrine of the separation of church and state. Islamic countries that embrace Shariah and political Islam are known for brutal policies that discriminate against women, gays, and religious minorities. Shariah law is entirely incompatible with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and would violate 1st Amendment protections of speech, assembly and the free exercise of religion.
We feel that the attempt to use our loved ones' deaths and the painful legacy of 9/11 still felt by New Yorkers to engage in a campaign to reverse America's core doctrine of religious freedom -- and to do so under the guise of interfaith understanding -- is a gross insult to the memory of those who were killed on that terrible day.
9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America asks concerned Americans -- regardless of race, color, creed, or ethnic origin--to join us in denouncing this effort to chip away at America's bedrock principle of religious freedom.
www.911familiesforamerica.org
THE JEWISH CONDITION
When Paul Newman died, they said how great he was but they failed to
mention he considered himself Jewish (born half-Jewish). When the woman (Helen Suzman) who helped Nelson Mandela died recently, they said how great she was, but they failed to mention she was Jewish.
On the other side of the equation, when Ivan Boesky or Andrew Fastow or Bernie Madoff committed fraud, almost every article mentioned they were Jewish..
However, when Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Martha Stewart, Randy Cunningham, Gov. Edwards, Conrad Black, Senator Keating, Gov Ryan, and Gov Blagojevich messed up; no
one reported what religion or denomination they were, because they were not Jewish.
This is a reminder of a famous Einstein quote:
In 1921, Albert Einstein presented a paper on his then-infant Theory of Relativity at the Sorbonne, the prestigious French university. "If I am proved correct," he said,
"the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me a Swiss citizen,
and the French will call me a great scientist. "If relativity is proved wrong, the
French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German, And the Germans will call me a Jew".
THE AMERICAN PLAN
Robin Williams, wearing a shirt that says "I love New York " in Arabic.
You gotta love Robin Williams......
Even if he's nuts! Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan. What we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message.
Robin Williams' plan...
(Hard to argue with this logic!)
"I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan."
1) "The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those "good ole boys", we will never "interfere" again.
2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany , South Korea , the Middle East , and the Philippines They don't want us there, anyway. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.
3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are. They're illegal!!! France will welcome them.
4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.
5) No foreign "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.
6) The US will make a strong effort
to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while .
7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)
8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given
to the army. The people who need
it most get very little, if anything.
9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.
10 ) All Amer icans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH...learn it..or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?
"The Statue of Liberty is no longer
saying "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'you want a piece of me?' "
If you agree with the above forward it to friends...If not, and I would be amazed, DELETE it!!
GROUND ZERO MOSQUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxFzFIDbKpg
BY ACT
On May 24th, the New York Post published an important op-ed written by our friend and colleague, Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
You can read Dr. Jasser’s op-ed here. Following is a short excerpt.
I am an American Muslim dedicated to defeating the ideology that fuels global lslamist terror -- political Islam. And I don't see such a "center" actually fighting terrorism or being a very "positive" addition near Ground Zero, no matter how well intentioned.
To put it bluntly, Ground Zero is the one place in America where Muslims should think less about teaching Islam and "our good side" and more about being American and fulfilling our responsibilities to confront the ideology of our enemies.
How we wish that the White House, Congress, and our law enforcement and intelligence communities would reach out more to Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser, instead of legitimizing Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations that were named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial.
Organizations like ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and CAIR (Council on American Islamic-Relations).
BY ACT
On May 24th, the New York Post published an important op-ed written by our friend and colleague, Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
You can read Dr. Jasser’s op-ed here. Following is a short excerpt.
I am an American Muslim dedicated to defeating the ideology that fuels global lslamist terror -- political Islam. And I don't see such a "center" actually fighting terrorism or being a very "positive" addition near Ground Zero, no matter how well intentioned.
To put it bluntly, Ground Zero is the one place in America where Muslims should think less about teaching Islam and "our good side" and more about being American and fulfilling our responsibilities to confront the ideology of our enemies.
How we wish that the White House, Congress, and our law enforcement and intelligence communities would reach out more to Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser, instead of legitimizing Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations that were named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial.
Organizations like ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and CAIR (Council on American Islamic-Relations).
ANY BORDERS?
WHAT A FAKE. IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO PROTECT US THEY WOULD HAVE THE DRONES DO THE SAME JOB THEY DO IN PAKISTAN. THAT WOULD STOP MOST ILLEGALS. IF THIS CONTINUES AS IS YOU CAN KISS AMERICA GOOD BY BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE OF THEM THAN THERE ARE OF US!
Immigration
U.S. Predator Drones to Surveil Mexican Border
Published June 24, 2010
AP/FILE
A Predator drone takes off on a U.S. Customs Border Patrol mission from Fort Huachuca, Ariz.
WASHINGTON -- The Homeland Security Department will use unmanned surveillance aircraft and other technological upgrades in its ongoing effort to protect the southern border of the United States.
The department said Wednesday it has obtained Federal Aviation Administration permission to operate unmanned planes along the Texas border and throughout the Gulf Coast region. Customs and Border Protection will base a surveillance drone at the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station in Texas.
Homeland Security also said it is working with the Office of National Drug Control Policy on "Project Roadrunner," a license plate recognition system designed to seek out possible drug traffickers.
And the department is collaborating with the Justice Department to improve information sharing between state, local and federal law enforcement agencies.
In a speech at the Center for International and Strategic Studies, a Washington think tank, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also announced a new partnership with the Major Cities Chiefs Association. The agreement would allow non-border cities to provide more assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies that are on the border.
...the skies along the border:
http://tinyurl.com/2vtjp64
////////////////////////////////////
Open Borders, Open Pit
Posted: 26 Jun 2010 08:29 PM PDT BY SULTAN
New York City's Mayor Bloomberg seems to have a new exit strategy. After trying to spread rumors that suggested he might run for President, in the hopes that one party or the other would give him the V.P. spot, failing and struggling through a third mayoral election that he promised would never happen against a candidate who never bothered to show up and still almost beat him, Bloomberg needs a way out.
Sure he's done a fine job amusing himself by scattering modern art atrocities painted day glo colors on the city hall lawn. He's made Manhattan impassable for traffic, after Albany shot him down on his commuter tax. But waging a war on good taste and cars just isn't enough. Nor is enthusiastically backing the Ground Zero mosque, spending ridiculous amounts of money overhauling basic city infrastructure like bus stations and firehouses to meet with his idea of architectural standards (transparent and on an angle usually). Now it's immigration reform.
Bloomberg has announced the Partnership for a New American Economy, which is a fancy way of saying that he'd like to legalize a whole lot of Mexican illegal aliens which will somehow lead to a "New American Economy", which is good because anything "new" must be better than old. Like New Coke. Or New Strain of Diphtheria. Or New Kids on the Block. Joining him are a bunch of CEO's, including Rupert Murdoch.
It's not exactly a big secret that the are two reasons we have open borders. The first reason is the Democratic party's reliance on importing dependent minority groups to build a voting base. The second reason is that the Republican party spends too much time answering to corporations who want open borders. The Chamber of Commerce is a big proponent of open borders, which makes Bloomberg's collection of CEO's from Disney (does the Mouse really need migrant workers?), Marriot, Hewlett Packard, Boeing, American Express, Morgan Stanley and the New York Times (migrants could probably do a better and cheaper job of writing their articles) and Rupert Murdoch of Newscorp.
DOOCY: The country is so gridlocked around this. What can business do that Washington, DC has not been effective in doing so far?
MURDOCH: Well you just gotta keep the pressure on the congressmen. You gotta do it on the press and on the television. It’s a political thing. They gotta fess up to it. [...] You gotta recognize that there are millions of bright and intelligent people around the world — whether they are in China or in Hungary or in Germany or something — who want to come to America and live the American Dream.
DOOCY: Right, but they can’t. [...] This is a political hot potato. How do get past the partisanship that is out there and is so biting for a while?
MURDOCH: I think we can show to the public the benefit of having migrants and the jobs that go with them.
So we're once again talking about major corporations lobbying congress to ignore the will of the people.
But Murdoch completely sidesteps the fact that importing migrant workers does not mean importing "bright and intelligent people", it means importing people to do bad and cheap labor, so companies can cut labor costs and pass them on to the taxpayer funding the social services for the migrants. That's already the situation that exists today.
I'm all for importing millions of bright and intelligent people, though perhaps not during a major recession. But that's not what either Democrats or Republican big business advocates want. What they want are cheap and easy people, who can be exploited on the job and at the voting booth. That's why immigration quotas look the way they do. That's why it's much easier for people from the Third World to move here, than for Europeans.
Immigration "reform" has become a euphemism for open borders with Mexico. And you only need one look at some of what's going on in Mexico and now in border states to see why that's a bad idea. This doesn't bother CEO's who live in gated communities, get driven to work in limousines and think they're immune from the problem. Whose exposure to Mexico is through high end resorts and servile waiting staffs who are happy to have a job. And that's exactly the culture they think they're bringing to America. Cheap labor catering to their whims. They have no idea what reality is, and they don't care.
Bloomberg more cynically makes the case that companies are outsourcing because of immigration restrictions
"Immigrants have always been an essential part of America's economic strength," said Mayor Bloomberg. "This coalition was formed to change our current immigration policy, which is undermining our economy and threatening our status as the world's leading power. Too many innovative new companies, and the jobs they create, are being formed overseas because entrepreneurs can't get a green card to start them here. We need to break the legislative stalemate that has taken over Congress if we want the U.S. to remain competitive in the 21st century."
Again Bloomberg, like Murdoch conflates HB1 type workers (which is another issue) with what he's actually proposing, which is the legalization of illegal aliens. We don't have a lot of illegal aliens holding down those kinds of jobs.
And America has booming immigration numbers, yet somehow corporations are still outsourcing. Now with huge unemployment figures, are employers really leaving America because they can't find workers? Is it because we're denying citizenship to some sort of specialists that can only be found abroad? That's not the reality of the situation.
Corporations outsource because of the regulatory environment in the US, which applies high taxes and minimum wages. You don't need a large human resources staff in China. You don't need to pay them more than a fraction of what they're paid in the US. You don't even need to care if they kill themselves.
While yuppies crowd into lines to be the first to get the latest iPhones, those phones are made by Foxconn workers, hundreds of thousands of migrants, crowded into dormitories, subjected to regulations that would not even pass muster in an American prison, who were being paid around 135 dollars a month. Pressure on Apple and Foxconn has doubled salary. Which just means that sooner or later, Apple will move on to a country with even cheaper labor. This is likely to happen once China becomes middle class and workers get used to a base salary and some expectations of how they should be treated.
This already happened in America. And the only place the clock is turned back is around illegal aliens. Which is exactly why businesses love them. But then they demand that the government legalize them and take them off their hands. And then more illegal aliens are brought in to replace them.
Some corporations are just looking to squash competition from companies that do employ illegal aliens. Others genuinely believe this is some kind of solution, which means that they are completely in denial.
For the mayors the payoff is obvious. Legalization means more federal social services dollars and more voters come election day, to shoulder aside those pesky natives who don't want to pay more taxes or see their city implode. As corporations pass the cost to the cities, the cities want to pass the cost to the Federal government, while benefiting from ladling out federal money to supporters in ethnic communities, who return the favor by voting for them. Game, set and match.
But none of this is good for the economy. Even if we ignore the social issues, this is hardly the time to promote more unemployment or government spending. Bloomberg and the CEO's are doing the Obama Administration a favor, and I wouldn't be too surprised if this Partnership for a New American Economy was even solicited by the White House. But their contempt for what the voters actually want is truly stunning.
The marketplace does not reward this strange combination of workplace regulation and immigration deregulation. It's like pouring water through a blocked hose. All you're going to do is break the hose. That's what has been happening to the American economy, as businesses import cheap labor in a system where cheap labor is illegal. That has driven the growth of illegal labor and off the books jobs in ethnic communities. But all that means is people using the system's social services, without paying into it. Immigration "reform" advocates argue that legalization will fix this by having them pay into the system. What they ignore is the fact that the only reason they're viable, is because they're economically viable is because they're not paying into the system.
Outsourcing and companies departing for climes with cheaper labor will continue. There may not be much we can do about it, besides applying tariffs, a notion that would give those same CEO's fits. But unless we can either automate more efficiently, block cheaper products or educate and organize people that buying more expensive but better made products is the thing to do-- the same process will continue.
But pushing legalization will accomplish nothing except to help drown the middle class. The south relied on slave labor, which created a wider gap between those on the top and on the bottom. The north relied on immigrant labor in its factories. Some of those immigrants were treated almost as badly as the slaves, but they did have enough mobility to be able to move up or to have their children and grandchildren move up into the middle class. But that same process can no longer work, when the middle class is being taxed to subsidize a dependent lifestyle for the people on the bottom. As a result those in the middle are sinking and those on the bottom have no real incentive to rise. If they want consumer products, there are credit cards. If they want homes, the government will subsidize their mortgage.
The American Dream increasingly no longer makes sense, as people live on credit and government entitlements. The big businesses and the government see no problem with any of this. The taxpayer sees half the problem with this picture. But it's only half the problem.
Governments and corporations are drowning the middle class in reckless spending. The bill keeps being passed along. Illegal immigration is just one snapshot of a much bigger problem, which is the end of responsibility. Where leaders once thought generations ahead, now they hardly think a year ahead. And the mountain of debt rises. Problems aren't fixed anymore, they're perpetuated and labeled as wise policies. Money is spent and the bill is passed, and then it's passed again and again. Until the system breaks down, and then the bill is passed to someone else. Until finally something that is too big to fail, actually does fail, and there's no one bigger around to bail it out.
Real leadership requires recognizing the nature of a problem, and to understand both the positive and negative consequences of every proposed solution. Illegal immigration for cheap labor is the dark side of an American Dream achieved through regulating business. Legalization is as pointless as pointing to a factory's polluted groundwater runoff and talking up its benefits. It redefines the problem and ignores its negative consequences. That is not leadership. That is spin. And we're drowning in it.
For the Republican party to get serious about stopping illegal immigration, it needs to take a long hard look at big business, and have a serious dialogue with them about the tax based consequences to their own companies of increased social services spending. And for the Republican party to get serious, conservatives need to actually take a hard line on it, instead of letting the Chamber of Commerce and the CATO Institute have the inside track. Because the road we're going on now has a station coming up, and it's called Europe. We're not there yet, but we're getting there. And when we get there, we'll cease to have a functional economy altogether. All we've have are entitlements, subsidies and a half-forgotten dream of former glory.
Immigration
U.S. Predator Drones to Surveil Mexican Border
Published June 24, 2010
AP/FILE
A Predator drone takes off on a U.S. Customs Border Patrol mission from Fort Huachuca, Ariz.
WASHINGTON -- The Homeland Security Department will use unmanned surveillance aircraft and other technological upgrades in its ongoing effort to protect the southern border of the United States.
The department said Wednesday it has obtained Federal Aviation Administration permission to operate unmanned planes along the Texas border and throughout the Gulf Coast region. Customs and Border Protection will base a surveillance drone at the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station in Texas.
Homeland Security also said it is working with the Office of National Drug Control Policy on "Project Roadrunner," a license plate recognition system designed to seek out possible drug traffickers.
And the department is collaborating with the Justice Department to improve information sharing between state, local and federal law enforcement agencies.
In a speech at the Center for International and Strategic Studies, a Washington think tank, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also announced a new partnership with the Major Cities Chiefs Association. The agreement would allow non-border cities to provide more assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies that are on the border.
...the skies along the border:
http://tinyurl.com/2vtjp64
////////////////////////////////////
Open Borders, Open Pit
Posted: 26 Jun 2010 08:29 PM PDT BY SULTAN
New York City's Mayor Bloomberg seems to have a new exit strategy. After trying to spread rumors that suggested he might run for President, in the hopes that one party or the other would give him the V.P. spot, failing and struggling through a third mayoral election that he promised would never happen against a candidate who never bothered to show up and still almost beat him, Bloomberg needs a way out.
Sure he's done a fine job amusing himself by scattering modern art atrocities painted day glo colors on the city hall lawn. He's made Manhattan impassable for traffic, after Albany shot him down on his commuter tax. But waging a war on good taste and cars just isn't enough. Nor is enthusiastically backing the Ground Zero mosque, spending ridiculous amounts of money overhauling basic city infrastructure like bus stations and firehouses to meet with his idea of architectural standards (transparent and on an angle usually). Now it's immigration reform.
Bloomberg has announced the Partnership for a New American Economy, which is a fancy way of saying that he'd like to legalize a whole lot of Mexican illegal aliens which will somehow lead to a "New American Economy", which is good because anything "new" must be better than old. Like New Coke. Or New Strain of Diphtheria. Or New Kids on the Block. Joining him are a bunch of CEO's, including Rupert Murdoch.
It's not exactly a big secret that the are two reasons we have open borders. The first reason is the Democratic party's reliance on importing dependent minority groups to build a voting base. The second reason is that the Republican party spends too much time answering to corporations who want open borders. The Chamber of Commerce is a big proponent of open borders, which makes Bloomberg's collection of CEO's from Disney (does the Mouse really need migrant workers?), Marriot, Hewlett Packard, Boeing, American Express, Morgan Stanley and the New York Times (migrants could probably do a better and cheaper job of writing their articles) and Rupert Murdoch of Newscorp.
DOOCY: The country is so gridlocked around this. What can business do that Washington, DC has not been effective in doing so far?
MURDOCH: Well you just gotta keep the pressure on the congressmen. You gotta do it on the press and on the television. It’s a political thing. They gotta fess up to it. [...] You gotta recognize that there are millions of bright and intelligent people around the world — whether they are in China or in Hungary or in Germany or something — who want to come to America and live the American Dream.
DOOCY: Right, but they can’t. [...] This is a political hot potato. How do get past the partisanship that is out there and is so biting for a while?
MURDOCH: I think we can show to the public the benefit of having migrants and the jobs that go with them.
So we're once again talking about major corporations lobbying congress to ignore the will of the people.
But Murdoch completely sidesteps the fact that importing migrant workers does not mean importing "bright and intelligent people", it means importing people to do bad and cheap labor, so companies can cut labor costs and pass them on to the taxpayer funding the social services for the migrants. That's already the situation that exists today.
I'm all for importing millions of bright and intelligent people, though perhaps not during a major recession. But that's not what either Democrats or Republican big business advocates want. What they want are cheap and easy people, who can be exploited on the job and at the voting booth. That's why immigration quotas look the way they do. That's why it's much easier for people from the Third World to move here, than for Europeans.
Immigration "reform" has become a euphemism for open borders with Mexico. And you only need one look at some of what's going on in Mexico and now in border states to see why that's a bad idea. This doesn't bother CEO's who live in gated communities, get driven to work in limousines and think they're immune from the problem. Whose exposure to Mexico is through high end resorts and servile waiting staffs who are happy to have a job. And that's exactly the culture they think they're bringing to America. Cheap labor catering to their whims. They have no idea what reality is, and they don't care.
Bloomberg more cynically makes the case that companies are outsourcing because of immigration restrictions
"Immigrants have always been an essential part of America's economic strength," said Mayor Bloomberg. "This coalition was formed to change our current immigration policy, which is undermining our economy and threatening our status as the world's leading power. Too many innovative new companies, and the jobs they create, are being formed overseas because entrepreneurs can't get a green card to start them here. We need to break the legislative stalemate that has taken over Congress if we want the U.S. to remain competitive in the 21st century."
Again Bloomberg, like Murdoch conflates HB1 type workers (which is another issue) with what he's actually proposing, which is the legalization of illegal aliens. We don't have a lot of illegal aliens holding down those kinds of jobs.
And America has booming immigration numbers, yet somehow corporations are still outsourcing. Now with huge unemployment figures, are employers really leaving America because they can't find workers? Is it because we're denying citizenship to some sort of specialists that can only be found abroad? That's not the reality of the situation.
Corporations outsource because of the regulatory environment in the US, which applies high taxes and minimum wages. You don't need a large human resources staff in China. You don't need to pay them more than a fraction of what they're paid in the US. You don't even need to care if they kill themselves.
While yuppies crowd into lines to be the first to get the latest iPhones, those phones are made by Foxconn workers, hundreds of thousands of migrants, crowded into dormitories, subjected to regulations that would not even pass muster in an American prison, who were being paid around 135 dollars a month. Pressure on Apple and Foxconn has doubled salary. Which just means that sooner or later, Apple will move on to a country with even cheaper labor. This is likely to happen once China becomes middle class and workers get used to a base salary and some expectations of how they should be treated.
This already happened in America. And the only place the clock is turned back is around illegal aliens. Which is exactly why businesses love them. But then they demand that the government legalize them and take them off their hands. And then more illegal aliens are brought in to replace them.
Some corporations are just looking to squash competition from companies that do employ illegal aliens. Others genuinely believe this is some kind of solution, which means that they are completely in denial.
For the mayors the payoff is obvious. Legalization means more federal social services dollars and more voters come election day, to shoulder aside those pesky natives who don't want to pay more taxes or see their city implode. As corporations pass the cost to the cities, the cities want to pass the cost to the Federal government, while benefiting from ladling out federal money to supporters in ethnic communities, who return the favor by voting for them. Game, set and match.
But none of this is good for the economy. Even if we ignore the social issues, this is hardly the time to promote more unemployment or government spending. Bloomberg and the CEO's are doing the Obama Administration a favor, and I wouldn't be too surprised if this Partnership for a New American Economy was even solicited by the White House. But their contempt for what the voters actually want is truly stunning.
The marketplace does not reward this strange combination of workplace regulation and immigration deregulation. It's like pouring water through a blocked hose. All you're going to do is break the hose. That's what has been happening to the American economy, as businesses import cheap labor in a system where cheap labor is illegal. That has driven the growth of illegal labor and off the books jobs in ethnic communities. But all that means is people using the system's social services, without paying into it. Immigration "reform" advocates argue that legalization will fix this by having them pay into the system. What they ignore is the fact that the only reason they're viable, is because they're economically viable is because they're not paying into the system.
Outsourcing and companies departing for climes with cheaper labor will continue. There may not be much we can do about it, besides applying tariffs, a notion that would give those same CEO's fits. But unless we can either automate more efficiently, block cheaper products or educate and organize people that buying more expensive but better made products is the thing to do-- the same process will continue.
But pushing legalization will accomplish nothing except to help drown the middle class. The south relied on slave labor, which created a wider gap between those on the top and on the bottom. The north relied on immigrant labor in its factories. Some of those immigrants were treated almost as badly as the slaves, but they did have enough mobility to be able to move up or to have their children and grandchildren move up into the middle class. But that same process can no longer work, when the middle class is being taxed to subsidize a dependent lifestyle for the people on the bottom. As a result those in the middle are sinking and those on the bottom have no real incentive to rise. If they want consumer products, there are credit cards. If they want homes, the government will subsidize their mortgage.
The American Dream increasingly no longer makes sense, as people live on credit and government entitlements. The big businesses and the government see no problem with any of this. The taxpayer sees half the problem with this picture. But it's only half the problem.
Governments and corporations are drowning the middle class in reckless spending. The bill keeps being passed along. Illegal immigration is just one snapshot of a much bigger problem, which is the end of responsibility. Where leaders once thought generations ahead, now they hardly think a year ahead. And the mountain of debt rises. Problems aren't fixed anymore, they're perpetuated and labeled as wise policies. Money is spent and the bill is passed, and then it's passed again and again. Until the system breaks down, and then the bill is passed to someone else. Until finally something that is too big to fail, actually does fail, and there's no one bigger around to bail it out.
Real leadership requires recognizing the nature of a problem, and to understand both the positive and negative consequences of every proposed solution. Illegal immigration for cheap labor is the dark side of an American Dream achieved through regulating business. Legalization is as pointless as pointing to a factory's polluted groundwater runoff and talking up its benefits. It redefines the problem and ignores its negative consequences. That is not leadership. That is spin. And we're drowning in it.
For the Republican party to get serious about stopping illegal immigration, it needs to take a long hard look at big business, and have a serious dialogue with them about the tax based consequences to their own companies of increased social services spending. And for the Republican party to get serious, conservatives need to actually take a hard line on it, instead of letting the Chamber of Commerce and the CATO Institute have the inside track. Because the road we're going on now has a station coming up, and it's called Europe. We're not there yet, but we're getting there. And when we get there, we'll cease to have a functional economy altogether. All we've have are entitlements, subsidies and a half-forgotten dream of former glory.
WHY DOESN'T U.S. MEDIA INFORM US?
June 23, 2010, - 2:54 pm
BREAKING: US Kills Hezbollah Terrorist Who Murdered Stethem (in Pakistan); Hezbollah Now Working w/ Taliban
By Debbie Schlussel
I just received a call from the family of Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem, who informed me that, over the weekend, Mohammad Ali Hamadi–the Hezbollah terrorist who murdered Rob Stethem–was killed by U.S. drones over Pakistan. The story hasn’t been covered by any mainstream English-language media, but it is all over the non-English foreign press. One wonders why America is not publicizing and celebrating the elimination of this top terrorist and vile being. Hamadi is on the FBI list of most wanted terrorists.
Hezbollah Terrorist Murderer Mohammad Ali Hamadi:
Thanks to US, He’s On His Way to the 72 Dark Eyed Revirginized
You may recall that, last week, DebbieSchlussel.com was one of the only media outlets to remember the 25th anniversary of the Hezbollah hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and the Hezbollah torture murder of Stethem, a brave patriot who refused to denounce America. As you may also recall, in December 2005, I broke the story that Germany released Hamadi to freedom, despite U.S. protests, something I’d predicted would happen. Hamadi was released in exchange for a German convert to Islam, who was held hostage in Iraq.
Hamadi’s presence in Pakistan is significant because it shows that Shi’ite Hezbollah is working with the Sunni Taliban. Hamadi was a top Hezbollah operative, and he would not be in Pakistan without the express blessing of Iran and Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, as well as Hezbollah spiritual leader Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah. Hamadi was meeting with top Al-Qaeda officials at the time he was sent to 72-dark-eyed-virgin-land. That is also significant because it is yet more confirmation of that which I’ve already written about repeatedly on this site
: that Hezbollah continues to work with Al-Qaeda in yet more terrorist activity–yet another reason why the Obama plan (identical to the previous Bush plan) to recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate political group is an outrage.
Robert Dean Stethem, Murdered by Hezbollah on June 15, 1985, RIP
Good for the U.S. that we finally eliminated this piece of trash, Hamadi, from this earth.
The Stethems tell me that Hamadi’s death on Sunday, Father’s Day, is significant because 25 years ago, on Father’s Day, Navy officials knocked on the Stethems’ door to notify Robert Stethem’s parents that their son was murdered by Hamadi and his fellow Hezbollah terrorists.
Peshawar, Pakistan – A major Lebanese terrorist released by the German government five years ago has been killed in a US drone attack in Pakistan’s tribal region, Pakistani intelligence sources said on Sunday.
Mohammed Ali Hamadi died when a missile fired by a CIA-operated unmanned drone aircraft destroyed a compound in North Waziristan, a known hub of al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, on Saturday.
“Altogether 16 militants died in the drone attack and 11 of them were foreigners,” said a Pakistani intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The term foreigner is used to refer to al-Qaeda associated operatives of Arab and Central Asian origin.
“We have identified those who were killed and among them is Mohammad Ali Hamadi,” added the official.
Another intelligence official who also sought anonymity verified the death of Hamadi. However, there was no government official available who could confirm the killing on record. . . .
Pakistani intelligence officials said that Hamadi traveled to Afghanistan to fight NATO troops in November 2009 and joined the Central Asia-based al-Qaeda linked terrorist group Jamaat al-Jihad al-Islami, which is believed to have recruited many Turkish and German nationals.
In March 2010, Hamadi came to Pakistan’s North Waziristan district, from where al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters conduct cross- border attacks on international forces in Afghanistan, to join colleagues based there.
“Hamadi and his comrades were in a meeting to plan further attacks in Afghanistan when the drone strike took place,” a Pakistani intelligence official said.
Among the other killed were: Atif bin Saeed, believed to be a close associate of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden; Turkish national Abdul Waheed al-Turkey; Saudi citizens Abdul Hamam and Brother Gul (a nick name); and Palestinian national Abdul Wali.
Of course, there’s always a Palestinian in there somewhere. But clearly Hezbollah was working with Al-Qaeda on some new terrorist attacks against our soldiers, or even something on American soil. We’ll never know.
In case you were wondering, of the other Hezbollah hijackers who took TWA Flight 847 and torture-murdered Rob Stethem, one–Imad Mughniyeh–was killed by a Febraury 2008 car bomb in Syria, believed to have been detonated by the Israelis. The other two–Hasan Izz-Al-Din and Ali Atwa–-remain free, and are believed to be in Lebanon, Iran, or Syria.
Well, it’s a start. Mohammad Ali Hamadi, Rot In Hell.
BREAKING: US Kills Hezbollah Terrorist Who Murdered Stethem (in Pakistan); Hezbollah Now Working w/ Taliban
By Debbie Schlussel
I just received a call from the family of Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem, who informed me that, over the weekend, Mohammad Ali Hamadi–the Hezbollah terrorist who murdered Rob Stethem–was killed by U.S. drones over Pakistan. The story hasn’t been covered by any mainstream English-language media, but it is all over the non-English foreign press. One wonders why America is not publicizing and celebrating the elimination of this top terrorist and vile being. Hamadi is on the FBI list of most wanted terrorists.
Hezbollah Terrorist Murderer Mohammad Ali Hamadi:
Thanks to US, He’s On His Way to the 72 Dark Eyed Revirginized
You may recall that, last week, DebbieSchlussel.com was one of the only media outlets to remember the 25th anniversary of the Hezbollah hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and the Hezbollah torture murder of Stethem, a brave patriot who refused to denounce America. As you may also recall, in December 2005, I broke the story that Germany released Hamadi to freedom, despite U.S. protests, something I’d predicted would happen. Hamadi was released in exchange for a German convert to Islam, who was held hostage in Iraq.
Hamadi’s presence in Pakistan is significant because it shows that Shi’ite Hezbollah is working with the Sunni Taliban. Hamadi was a top Hezbollah operative, and he would not be in Pakistan without the express blessing of Iran and Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, as well as Hezbollah spiritual leader Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah. Hamadi was meeting with top Al-Qaeda officials at the time he was sent to 72-dark-eyed-virgin-land. That is also significant because it is yet more confirmation of that which I’ve already written about repeatedly on this site
: that Hezbollah continues to work with Al-Qaeda in yet more terrorist activity–yet another reason why the Obama plan (identical to the previous Bush plan) to recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate political group is an outrage.
Robert Dean Stethem, Murdered by Hezbollah on June 15, 1985, RIP
Good for the U.S. that we finally eliminated this piece of trash, Hamadi, from this earth.
The Stethems tell me that Hamadi’s death on Sunday, Father’s Day, is significant because 25 years ago, on Father’s Day, Navy officials knocked on the Stethems’ door to notify Robert Stethem’s parents that their son was murdered by Hamadi and his fellow Hezbollah terrorists.
Peshawar, Pakistan – A major Lebanese terrorist released by the German government five years ago has been killed in a US drone attack in Pakistan’s tribal region, Pakistani intelligence sources said on Sunday.
Mohammed Ali Hamadi died when a missile fired by a CIA-operated unmanned drone aircraft destroyed a compound in North Waziristan, a known hub of al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, on Saturday.
“Altogether 16 militants died in the drone attack and 11 of them were foreigners,” said a Pakistani intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The term foreigner is used to refer to al-Qaeda associated operatives of Arab and Central Asian origin.
“We have identified those who were killed and among them is Mohammad Ali Hamadi,” added the official.
Another intelligence official who also sought anonymity verified the death of Hamadi. However, there was no government official available who could confirm the killing on record. . . .
Pakistani intelligence officials said that Hamadi traveled to Afghanistan to fight NATO troops in November 2009 and joined the Central Asia-based al-Qaeda linked terrorist group Jamaat al-Jihad al-Islami, which is believed to have recruited many Turkish and German nationals.
In March 2010, Hamadi came to Pakistan’s North Waziristan district, from where al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters conduct cross- border attacks on international forces in Afghanistan, to join colleagues based there.
“Hamadi and his comrades were in a meeting to plan further attacks in Afghanistan when the drone strike took place,” a Pakistani intelligence official said.
Among the other killed were: Atif bin Saeed, believed to be a close associate of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden; Turkish national Abdul Waheed al-Turkey; Saudi citizens Abdul Hamam and Brother Gul (a nick name); and Palestinian national Abdul Wali.
Of course, there’s always a Palestinian in there somewhere. But clearly Hezbollah was working with Al-Qaeda on some new terrorist attacks against our soldiers, or even something on American soil. We’ll never know.
In case you were wondering, of the other Hezbollah hijackers who took TWA Flight 847 and torture-murdered Rob Stethem, one–Imad Mughniyeh–was killed by a Febraury 2008 car bomb in Syria, believed to have been detonated by the Israelis. The other two–Hasan Izz-Al-Din and Ali Atwa–-remain free, and are believed to be in Lebanon, Iran, or Syria.
Well, it’s a start. Mohammad Ali Hamadi, Rot In Hell.
A CHILLING INTERVIEW
Richard L Rubenstein, author of the book “After Auschwitz”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8WfSMek-bQ&feature=player_embedded
ALSO SEE: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/
***GULF OIL SPILL***
ASIDE FROM OBAMA BASHING ISN'T IT OBVIOUS THAT AS EACH ADMINISTRATION TAKES OFFICE OUR GOVERNMENT GETS WORSE?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on June 29, 2010
Printer-Friendly Version
It's one thing to say that Obama's administration showed ineptitude and mismanagement in its handling of the Gulf oil spill. It is quite another to grasp the situation up close, as I did during a recent visit to Alabama.
According to state disaster relief officials, Alabama conceived a plan -- early on -- to erect huge booms offshore to shield the approximately 200 miles of the state's coastline from oil. Rather than install the relatively light and shallow booms in use elsewhere, the state (with assistance from the Coast Guard) canvassed the world and located enough huge, heavy booms -- some weighing tons and seven meters high -- to guard their coast.
But...no sooner were the booms in place than the Coast Guard, perhaps under pressure from the public comments of James Carville, uprooted them and moved them to guard the Louisiana coastline instead.
So Alabama decided on a backup plan. It would buy snare booms to catch the oil as it began to wash up on the beaches.
But...the Fish and Wildlife Administration vetoed the plan, saying it would endanger sea turtles that nest on the beaches.
So Alabama -- ever resourceful -- decided to hire 400 workers to patrol the beaches in person, scooping up oil that had washed ashore.
But...OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) refused to allow them to work more than 20 minutes out of every hour and required an hourlong break after 40 minutes of work, so the cleanup proceeded at a very slow pace.
The short answer is that every agency -- each with its own particular bureaucratic agenda -- was able to veto each aspect of any plan to fight the spill, with the unintended consequence that nothing stopped the oil from destroying hundreds of miles of wetlands, habitats, beaches, fisheries and recreational facilities.
Where was the president? Why did he not intervene in these and countless other bureaucratic controversies to force a focus on the oil, not on the turtles and other incidental concerns?
According to Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, the administration's "lack of ability has become transparent" in its handling of the oil spill. He notes that one stellar exception has been Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, without whom, he says, nothing whatever would have gotten done.
Eventually, the state stopped listening to federal agencies and just has gone ahead and given funds directly to the local folks fighting the spill rather than paying attention to the directives of the Unified Command. Apparently, there is a world of difference between the competence of the Coast Guard and the superb and efficient regular Navy and military.
Now the greatest crisis of all looms on the horizon as hurricanes sweep into the Gulf. Should one hit offshore, it will destroy all the booms that have been placed to stop the oil from reaching shore. And there are no more booms anywhere in the world, according to Alabama disaster relief officials. "There is no more inventory of booms anywhere on earth," one told me in despair.
The political impact of this incompetence has only just begun to be felt. While administration operatives are flying high after a week in which the president's ratings rebounded to 49 percent, per Rasmussen, after his firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the oil is still gushing and the situation is about to worsen.
The obvious fact is that Obama has no executive experience, nor do any of his top advisers. Without a clear mandate from the top, needed efforts to salvage the situation are repeatedly stymied by well-meaning bureaucrats strictly following the letter of their agency policy and federal law. The result, ironically, of their determined efforts to protect the environment has been the greatest environmental disaster in history. But some turtles are OK!
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on June 29, 2010
Printer-Friendly Version
It's one thing to say that Obama's administration showed ineptitude and mismanagement in its handling of the Gulf oil spill. It is quite another to grasp the situation up close, as I did during a recent visit to Alabama.
According to state disaster relief officials, Alabama conceived a plan -- early on -- to erect huge booms offshore to shield the approximately 200 miles of the state's coastline from oil. Rather than install the relatively light and shallow booms in use elsewhere, the state (with assistance from the Coast Guard) canvassed the world and located enough huge, heavy booms -- some weighing tons and seven meters high -- to guard their coast.
But...no sooner were the booms in place than the Coast Guard, perhaps under pressure from the public comments of James Carville, uprooted them and moved them to guard the Louisiana coastline instead.
So Alabama decided on a backup plan. It would buy snare booms to catch the oil as it began to wash up on the beaches.
But...the Fish and Wildlife Administration vetoed the plan, saying it would endanger sea turtles that nest on the beaches.
So Alabama -- ever resourceful -- decided to hire 400 workers to patrol the beaches in person, scooping up oil that had washed ashore.
But...OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) refused to allow them to work more than 20 minutes out of every hour and required an hourlong break after 40 minutes of work, so the cleanup proceeded at a very slow pace.
The short answer is that every agency -- each with its own particular bureaucratic agenda -- was able to veto each aspect of any plan to fight the spill, with the unintended consequence that nothing stopped the oil from destroying hundreds of miles of wetlands, habitats, beaches, fisheries and recreational facilities.
Where was the president? Why did he not intervene in these and countless other bureaucratic controversies to force a focus on the oil, not on the turtles and other incidental concerns?
According to Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, the administration's "lack of ability has become transparent" in its handling of the oil spill. He notes that one stellar exception has been Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, without whom, he says, nothing whatever would have gotten done.
Eventually, the state stopped listening to federal agencies and just has gone ahead and given funds directly to the local folks fighting the spill rather than paying attention to the directives of the Unified Command. Apparently, there is a world of difference between the competence of the Coast Guard and the superb and efficient regular Navy and military.
Now the greatest crisis of all looms on the horizon as hurricanes sweep into the Gulf. Should one hit offshore, it will destroy all the booms that have been placed to stop the oil from reaching shore. And there are no more booms anywhere in the world, according to Alabama disaster relief officials. "There is no more inventory of booms anywhere on earth," one told me in despair.
The political impact of this incompetence has only just begun to be felt. While administration operatives are flying high after a week in which the president's ratings rebounded to 49 percent, per Rasmussen, after his firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the oil is still gushing and the situation is about to worsen.
The obvious fact is that Obama has no executive experience, nor do any of his top advisers. Without a clear mandate from the top, needed efforts to salvage the situation are repeatedly stymied by well-meaning bureaucrats strictly following the letter of their agency policy and federal law. The result, ironically, of their determined efforts to protect the environment has been the greatest environmental disaster in history. But some turtles are OK!
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Monday, June 21, 2010
IRAN SANCTIONS HELP WHOM?
NOW PRESSURE IS BEING APPLIED TO ISRAEL TO GIVE IRAN A SEAPORT ON THE MEDITERRANEAN. ISN'T IS ABOUT TIME ISRAEL ARMED IRANIAN DISSIDENTS?
Report: Iran smuggling weapons via Dubai
British Telegraph newspaper says Tehran successfully smuggling sophisticated technological equipment from leading Western manufacturers into Iran via trading company based in Dubai
Ynet
Published: 06.06.10, 13:22 / Israel News
On the backdrop of assurances from the West that the next round of sanctions against Iran is forthcoming, a British newspaper reported Sunday that Iran is smuggling advanced weapons systems and equipment used in the country's uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz.
According to the report in the Sunday Telegraph, an Iranian company tied to the country's nuclear program acquired high-grade German equipment including computers, controllers, communication cards and cables using false end-user certificates without the knowledge of the German company.
Gaining Momentum
IAEA: Iran expands atom work / News agencies
UN nuclear watchdog says Iran stockpiled twice amount of uranium needed to make fissile nuclear warhead material
The deal was apparently negotiated with a Dubai trading company, which then sold the equipment to the Iranian company.
A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency leaked to the media at the beginning of last week claims that Iran has thus far collected 2,400 kg (about 5,290 lbs) of low-enriched uranium. If this quantity is enriched to the necessary levels, it would be enough to make two atomic bombs.
According to Western sources, the report proves that Iran has ceased its suspension of its military nuclear program. The Telegraph reported that this explain Iran's attempts to smuggle equipment via Dubai.
The Iranian company that received the equipment is Kalaye Electric, which is also subject to international sanctions due to its connections with the Iranian nuclear program. The company is responsible for the procurement and development of centrifuges used at Natanz.
Iranian Ambassador to the UK Rasoul Movahedian denied the report, saying that Iran has no need to import or smuggle technological equipment.
A senior official in the UN told the British paper, "The Iranians are still managing to smuggle sophisticated technology through Dubai for its nuclear program by using false certificates and unscrupulous intermediaries. We need the Dubai authorities to be more rigorous in preventing the transfer of this equipment to Iran."
Security Council to discuss sanctions this week
The US and the world powers believe that Iran's uranium enrichment program is being used to produce nuclear weapons, and have rejected the agreement Turkey and Brazil recently brokered with Tehran under the claim that the deal does not ensure that Iran will cease its dangerous nuclear activities.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Thursday that he believes a vote on sanctions will be held this week. The sanctions resolution, if adopted, will lead to a fourth sanctions package being imposed on Tehran. The US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China already agreed on a draft resolution last month.
The draft seeks to expand the existing embargo on weapons trading with Iran to oversee every bank transaction to or from Iran, and to freeze the licensing for all Iranian banks to open branches abroad. In addition, the resolution would stipulate tight oversight of "suspicious" Iranian ships in ports around the world, as well as the high seas.
Report: Iran smuggling weapons via Dubai
British Telegraph newspaper says Tehran successfully smuggling sophisticated technological equipment from leading Western manufacturers into Iran via trading company based in Dubai
Ynet
Published: 06.06.10, 13:22 / Israel News
On the backdrop of assurances from the West that the next round of sanctions against Iran is forthcoming, a British newspaper reported Sunday that Iran is smuggling advanced weapons systems and equipment used in the country's uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz.
According to the report in the Sunday Telegraph, an Iranian company tied to the country's nuclear program acquired high-grade German equipment including computers, controllers, communication cards and cables using false end-user certificates without the knowledge of the German company.
Gaining Momentum
IAEA: Iran expands atom work / News agencies
UN nuclear watchdog says Iran stockpiled twice amount of uranium needed to make fissile nuclear warhead material
The deal was apparently negotiated with a Dubai trading company, which then sold the equipment to the Iranian company.
A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency leaked to the media at the beginning of last week claims that Iran has thus far collected 2,400 kg (about 5,290 lbs) of low-enriched uranium. If this quantity is enriched to the necessary levels, it would be enough to make two atomic bombs.
According to Western sources, the report proves that Iran has ceased its suspension of its military nuclear program. The Telegraph reported that this explain Iran's attempts to smuggle equipment via Dubai.
The Iranian company that received the equipment is Kalaye Electric, which is also subject to international sanctions due to its connections with the Iranian nuclear program. The company is responsible for the procurement and development of centrifuges used at Natanz.
Iranian Ambassador to the UK Rasoul Movahedian denied the report, saying that Iran has no need to import or smuggle technological equipment.
A senior official in the UN told the British paper, "The Iranians are still managing to smuggle sophisticated technology through Dubai for its nuclear program by using false certificates and unscrupulous intermediaries. We need the Dubai authorities to be more rigorous in preventing the transfer of this equipment to Iran."
Security Council to discuss sanctions this week
The US and the world powers believe that Iran's uranium enrichment program is being used to produce nuclear weapons, and have rejected the agreement Turkey and Brazil recently brokered with Tehran under the claim that the deal does not ensure that Iran will cease its dangerous nuclear activities.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Thursday that he believes a vote on sanctions will be held this week. The sanctions resolution, if adopted, will lead to a fourth sanctions package being imposed on Tehran. The US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China already agreed on a draft resolution last month.
The draft seeks to expand the existing embargo on weapons trading with Iran to oversee every bank transaction to or from Iran, and to freeze the licensing for all Iranian banks to open branches abroad. In addition, the resolution would stipulate tight oversight of "suspicious" Iranian ships in ports around the world, as well as the high seas.
DOES MEXICO RUN THE U.S.A.?
Friends
Like most of you I watched the insult and an incredible display of hypocrisy heaped on our country by the President of Mexico. I grew even more disgusted realizing that it was at the invitation of an American President, his Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Never in our history would our nation's leaders (Republican or Democrat) have tolerated, permitted, or applauded this insult. What the hell were they thinking?
Here is an American response. It was delivered on the floor of the House an is posted on the youtube link below. It didn't make it on prime time news so I'm passing it along. Hope you'll feel motivated to do the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldx8gZDwZWs
This is very interesting and if Arizona can do it, why can't the rest of America ?
MEXICO IS ANGRY !
Three cheers for Arizona
> The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the State of Sonora, Mexico doesn't like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.
> The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico . Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona 's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico .
>
> It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off.
>
> A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona 's new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.
> At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor, - made up of mostly small towns, - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money.
>
> The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States .
> Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.
>
> The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government. 'How can Arizona pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales .
>
> 'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona ,' she said, speaking in Spanish. 'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,' she said. "We are one family, socially and economically,:" she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona .
>
> Wrong!
>
> The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico , and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico 's citizens.
>
> It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.
>
> Too bad that other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona .
>
> Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!
>
> New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message...
>
> 1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
> * * * * * * * *
> 2. All ballots will be in this nation's language..
> * * * * * * * *
> 3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
> * * * * * * * *
> 4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
> * * * * * * * *
> 5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
> * * * * * * * *
> 6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
> * * * * * * * *
>
> 7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
> * * * * * * * *
> 8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
> * * * * * * * *
> 9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
> * * * * * * * *
> 10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
> * * * * * * * * *
> Too strict ?
>
> The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO !
>
> These sound fine to me. NOW, how can we get these laws to be America 's Immigration Laws?
> ///////////////////////////////
> Mexico Complains Of Too Many Repatriated Mexicans
> Last Updated: Mon, 04/07/2008 - 3:28pm
>
> The U.S. border state leading the battle against illegal immigration with unprecedented tough laws has received complaints from Mexico’s government that too many Mexicans have been repatriated and the country is overwhelmed with demands for housing, jobs and schools .
>
> Fed up with the devastating effect of illegal immigration, Arizona has enacted the nation’s toughest laws to curb the problem and evidently its working. State legislators have passed laws barring illegal immigrants from receiving government services, posting bail for serious crimes and winning punitive damages in lawsuits. This year a new law makes it illegal for businesses to hire undocumented workers and those that do can be shut down.
>
> The state legislator who sponsored the work bill, Representative Russell Pearce, says the law’s undeniably positive effects include smaller class sizes, shorter emergency room waits and an overall huge savings to taxpayers. The Republican congressman drafted the bill because studies revealed that illegal immigration cost Arizona taxpayers over $2 billion annually, not including the toll of crime and destruction.
>
> It turns out that enough illegal immigrants have either fled the U.S. or been deported that officials in the Mexican state of Sonora, which shares an extensive border with Arizona, have complained that too many of their fellow countrymen have returned. They miss the remittances sent from the U.S. as well as smaller class sizes in local schools.
>
> Mexican government officials knew Arizona’s tough employment verification law would become their worst nightmare, which explains why they tried blocking it. Earlier this year a delegation of nine legislators from Sonora toured Tucson and held a news conference to say that their beloved state cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools resulting from illegal Mexican workers returning home.
>
> One baffled Mexican legislator, Leticia Amparano Gamez, asked in Spanish “how can they pass a law like this?” She went on to explain that Mexico is not prepared for the “tremendous problems” it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs. Another member of the Mexican delegation, Representative Florencio Diaz Armenta, asked “what do we do with the repatriated?”
Friends
Like most of you I watched the insult and an incredible display of hypocrisy heaped on our country by the President of Mexico. I grew even more disgusted realizing that it was at the invitation of an American President, his Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Never in our history would our nation's leaders (Republican or Democrat) have tolerated, permitted, or applauded this insult. What the hell were they thinking?
Here is an American response. It was delivered on the floor of the House an is posted on the youtube link below. It didn't make it on prime time news so I'm passing it along. Hope you'll feel motivated to do the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldx8gZDwZWs
This is very interesting and if Arizona can do it, why can't the rest of America ?
MEXICO IS ANGRY !
Three cheers for Arizona
> The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the State of Sonora, Mexico doesn't like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.
> The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico . Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona 's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico .
>
> It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off.
>
> A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona 's new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.
> At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor, - made up of mostly small towns, - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money.
>
> The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States .
> Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.
>
> The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government. 'How can Arizona pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales .
>
> 'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona ,' she said, speaking in Spanish. 'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,' she said. "We are one family, socially and economically,:" she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona .
>
> Wrong!
>
> The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico , and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico 's citizens.
>
> It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.
>
> Too bad that other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona .
>
> Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!
>
> New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message...
>
> 1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
> * * * * * * * *
> 2. All ballots will be in this nation's language..
> * * * * * * * *
> 3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
> * * * * * * * *
> 4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
> * * * * * * * *
> 5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
> * * * * * * * *
> 6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
> * * * * * * * *
>
> 7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
> * * * * * * * *
> 8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
> * * * * * * * *
> 9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
> * * * * * * * *
> 10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
> * * * * * * * * *
> Too strict ?
>
> The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO !
>
> These sound fine to me. NOW, how can we get these laws to be America 's Immigration Laws?
> ///////////////////////////////
> Mexico Complains Of Too Many Repatriated Mexicans
> Last Updated: Mon, 04/07/2008 - 3:28pm
>
> The U.S. border state leading the battle against illegal immigration with unprecedented tough laws has received complaints from Mexico’s government that too many Mexicans have been repatriated and the country is overwhelmed with demands for housing, jobs and schools .
>
> Fed up with the devastating effect of illegal immigration, Arizona has enacted the nation’s toughest laws to curb the problem and evidently its working. State legislators have passed laws barring illegal immigrants from receiving government services, posting bail for serious crimes and winning punitive damages in lawsuits. This year a new law makes it illegal for businesses to hire undocumented workers and those that do can be shut down.
>
> The state legislator who sponsored the work bill, Representative Russell Pearce, says the law’s undeniably positive effects include smaller class sizes, shorter emergency room waits and an overall huge savings to taxpayers. The Republican congressman drafted the bill because studies revealed that illegal immigration cost Arizona taxpayers over $2 billion annually, not including the toll of crime and destruction.
>
> It turns out that enough illegal immigrants have either fled the U.S. or been deported that officials in the Mexican state of Sonora, which shares an extensive border with Arizona, have complained that too many of their fellow countrymen have returned. They miss the remittances sent from the U.S. as well as smaller class sizes in local schools.
>
> Mexican government officials knew Arizona’s tough employment verification law would become their worst nightmare, which explains why they tried blocking it. Earlier this year a delegation of nine legislators from Sonora toured Tucson and held a news conference to say that their beloved state cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools resulting from illegal Mexican workers returning home.
>
> One baffled Mexican legislator, Leticia Amparano Gamez, asked in Spanish “how can they pass a law like this?” She went on to explain that Mexico is not prepared for the “tremendous problems” it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs. Another member of the Mexican delegation, Representative Florencio Diaz Armenta, asked “what do we do with the repatriated?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)